At a family reunion of the direct evolutionary predecessors of our species, there would be a lot of arguing over whether Australopithecus sediba gets in the door.

Australopithecus sediba is the name of an ancient species discovered in South Africa in 2008. Researchers now have substantial evidence, published in this week's edition of the journal Science, that Australopithecus sediba could be a direct ancestor of the Homo genus, of which humans are a part (we are Homo sapiens). If that's true, it means our family tree may have to be redrawn, with Australopithecus sediba at the stem of the Homo line.

But that's just one possibility, and a controversial one at that.

Researchers studied two partial skeletons, a young male named Karabo and an adult female who has not yet been named, which were found in the remains of a collapsed cave. "Australopithecus" means "southern ape," and "sediba" is "natural spring" or "fountain" in the Sotho language. The team announced the discovery of the previously unknown species in 2010.

'Lucy' discoverer: Why I study human evolution

Scientists have several theories about what these skeletons might mean for human evolution.

The earliest undisputed Homo genus member is Homo erectus, which researchers estimate to be about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, so Homo erectus could theoretically be the direct evolutionary descendant. Alternatively, Australopithecus sediba could be the direct ancestor of Homo habilis, considered to be a toolmaker because its hand bones were found next to stone tools, or of Homo rudolfensis, a contemporary of Homo habilis of disputed evolutionary origin. Australopithecus sediba could be related to both of them, and perhaps their current labels are inaccurate. Or, of course, it could be a dead end, although researchers say the skeletons' human-like features suggest otherwise.

Species as experiments in evolution

It makes sense that there seem to have been many variations in anatomical form evolving around 2 million years ago, said Lee Berger, paleoanthropologist at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg, South Africa, who led the discovery of the fossils.

"As you’re beginning to have the stresses and stressors of environmental change and the things going on in Africa around 2 million years (ago), you would think that many experiments would emerge, Sediba just being one of those," he said.

There can be only one species that gave rise to Homo erectus, which is our direct ancestor, however. To demonstrate stronger evidence, Berger said, archaeologists would have to find fossils that come before and after Australopithecus sediba in the evolutionary lineage.

Based on the variety of Australopithecus forms that have been found, Ian Tattersall, paleoanthropologist and curator at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who wasn't involved in the study, said he believes Australopithecus sediba probably did not give rise to Homo. Instead, it represents the context in which our true ancestor, in whatever form it was, did arise: during a time when there were many different forms of upright creatures. About 2.6 million years ago there was a huge change in the African fauna, with more grasslands arising; these kinds of environmental factors probably shaped the evolution of different species.

"In some population, some genetic novelty became established which basically set the patent for the genus Homo in a short period of time," Tattersall said. "What we’re not going to see, I think, is the gradual modification over millions of years of an Australopith into Homo."

Exploring the skeletons

Based on the two skeletons studied so far, Australopithecus sediba represents a curious, unique combination of human-like and primitive features.

For instance, consider the brain: Australopithecus sediba's skull shows a cranial capacity of 420 cubic centimeters, whereas a chimpanzee's is about 380 cubic centimeters. Homo erectus is about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, and its cranial capacity would be a whopping 900 cubic centimeters. If Australopithecus sediba is the direct evolutionary ancestor of Homo erectus, it suggests a more rapid expansion of brain size over the course of evolutionary history than previously believed. Also, the overall shape of the brain appears to resemble a human's more than a chimp's.

Then there's the matter of feet. Australopithecus sediba has a mostly human-like ankle joint, but the heel bone is mostly ape-like. That's surprising because the species of Lucy, the famous 3-million-year-old skeleton classified as Australopithecus afarensis, has a more advanced heel than Australopithecus sediba. If Berger's skeletons descend evolutionarily from Lucy's species, that would mean that heel anatomy would have evolved from advanced to primitive to advanced again - which is unlikely. Alternatively, Lucy's species may be more of a cousin to Australopithecus sediba, and to our genus, on the evolutionary tree, rather than an immediate relative.

"If that's the case, then there may very well be a ghost lineage," Berger said. In other words, there are probably more fossils out there to explain where these species came from.

At the same time, Australopithecus sediba's pelvis is the most human-like of any found in the Australopithecus genus, Berger said. While females of Lucy's species have wide, stable platforms with a birth outlet, the human pelvis is more bowl-like and curves around the body, and Australopithecus sediba's pelvis is closer to that.

Researchers have good evidence from the hands and feet that Australopithecus sediba was spending a decent amount of time climbing in trees. And the hands, which have grasping capabilities, are more advanced than those of Homo habilis, suggesting it, too, was an early tool-user.

"Sediba and the other early bipedal apes were creatures of relatively small stature that retained a lot of climbing features, particularly in their upper body skeleton, so they spent a lot of time in the trees even though, when they came to the ground, they walked on two legs," Tattersall said.

What led to the deaths of these possible proto-humans that Berger's team studied? They appear to have fallen, perhaps while looking for water, Berger said. But further investigation will reveal more precise details.

From the other evidence that hasn't yet been unearthed or examined, Berger promised his team will also likely discover the dietary habits of Australopithecus sediba and whether they were hairy. Researchers may already have found evidence of soft tissue. And they've got more skeletons to explore from the same area.

"What makes this really exciting is that this is opening this whole question of where the genus Homo came from to re-examination. What they have is a wonderful sample of individuals, of a kind that we don’t really expect to find in the human fossil record. Just one complete skeleton is rare, let alone a whole bunch of individuals," Tattersall said.

soundoff(2,014 Responses)

let me let you in on a secret IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED it doesnt say in the beginning god evolved GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE niot ape and apet

September 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

NotQuiteRight

Sorry, this was meant for you.
In the beginning, there was the book. And the book was withoot flaaws. And it was revered by the mindless.

September 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm |

earth2loons

only a mindless person would say something like that.

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

XO

Scripture does not hide this fact (1 Corinthians 1 18-30). Love is the greater good. Logic is esteemed highly by those who are arrogant. There was no proof of any pending flood while Noah was preaching. His generation rejected and was condemned solely on the basis of choosing wicked over God's loving message. Noah entered the Ark a minority. He exited the Ark a majority. The meek shall inherit the Earth. C.f., Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the earth. Galations 6:7... God Cannot Be Mocked

September 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

I don't see what's wrong with my statement. If I'm mindless to note that the book is mindless, imagine how much more mindless the followers are than me.

September 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

Uh, the flood never happened because it's not in the geologic column, silly. If it would have, there would be plenty of evidence for it, like the big rubble piles from the last glaciers, which, by the way, occurred much earlier than the supposed flood, and left tons of evidence. Not one shred of evidence for a global flood, or an ark. It's apparently all been make-believe; who would have known until modern science came along.

September 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm |

XO

@WhatWhatWhat Odd how atheist plagiarize the Bible in many works. Knowing Scripture well, I see many agnostics cite later works for their work that obviously have their origin in Scripture. Inability to cite original sources due to ignorance.

I've also noted that previous (God fearing) generations pass along ideologies to subsequent unbelieving generations who have unknowingly mimicked it's moral and social values.

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

XO

@WhatWhatWhat You're ignorance precedes you. According to Scripture there was a world wide flood. Many yeas after the flood (pangea) was broken up, c.f. Genesis 10:25. This affects certain evidences you are indicating.

September 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

KrashUndBurn

"""You're ignorance precedes you. According to Scripture there was a world wide flood."""

Anyone else detect the bitter irony in this person's missive?

September 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

KB

Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Bedouin tribesmen that roamed around Arabia. They picked up pieces of culture along the way and adopted them and changed them. Thus the Flood came from the Epic of Gilgamesh. In short the Flood is a renewing or fertility story.This renewing comes from the realization that large rivers dump rich sediment on the banks every year so humans did not have to move around every few years to plant crops. This eventually gave rise to civilization. The Bible is full of these "stories" – They are not literal folks.

There are many flood legends (including Gilgamesh Epic). What's to say that an event did not occur and there be several accounts of it recorded (later) in text?

September 8, 2011 at 5:03 pm |

Realistic

@XO : the Epic of Gilgamesh isn't the only story that the bible copied from the Sumerians who believed in many gods largely due to the fact that they were trying to make sense of the world and explain what they couldn't because they didn't have modern science to do so. "the god of Gaps". We now know how things happen. The bible was created by men to benefit men before they even knew what a germ was. Religion has served its purpose a long time ago to solidify authority through fear. We cant progress as a whole if we hold on to out-dated beliefs. It is now time for science to take over. Lets stick with facts and proofs not phony unproven beliefs that is used as a justification for the unjust.

September 8, 2011 at 11:26 pm |

Muddy

Lots of local or regional floods occurred, there is evidence that the Black sea radically and rapidly expanded to cover human buildings. However, this is no evidence whatsoever of a world wide flood which covered all the mountains within the span of human existence. Even if we ignore the issue of how on Earth did land based Western Hemisphere animals get to the Middle East to get on a boat that could not come close to holding all the bird species, we have a problem here.
Its is likely true that at least one flood ended civilization in a local area (like the black sea) at least once, that this maybe the root of the legend. As usually the case, the flood was expanded to the whole world in the re-telling because it did destroy the world of the survivors.
However the world flood is just like the Creation story, either they did not happen as told in the Bible, or God went to great lengths to provide overwhelming evidence that they never happened. The would mean God is the most dishonest creature we know about, or the Bible is not without flaws.

September 9, 2011 at 2:10 pm |

XO

I agree. The Big Bang needs a big banger. Created things need a creator. Many have seared their conscience and have been given over to delusions.

In labs, science has demonstrated that it is possible to clone a human female from bone marrow. But the Biblical account of God causing Adam to go into a deep sleep to clone Eve from his rib is a myth. People are not being intellectually honest with themselves.

September 8, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

brobin

The big bang doesn't need a banger. You are assuming things were "created" and therefore need a "creator". Even assuming your flawed assumptions, who created the creator? How about this, my God created your God. Its clear. Your God needed to be created. He can't just come from nothing. He is very complex, so he needs a creator. That is my God. I will write you a book on what my God expects you to do, since the God he created has been a disappointment.

September 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

John T Draper

Where did you get the idea that every creation needs a creator? That's not science, it's a sound bite. And it's specious.

In your very own words, you have proven that god does not exist. If every creation requires a creator, then where did your god come from? Why is he the exception to the rule? You make a rule, then break it in the very same sentence.

The most horrifying aspect of your argument is that you yourself can't even see the ridiculous hipocracy of it.

September 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

The Guy

@brobin servin' some logic. love it.

September 8, 2011 at 3:38 pm |

Osama

God was not created. It is impossible to create God...just like it is impossible to create life (without seeds). God, like energy, can not be created nor destroyed...God was always there...he created the big bang, he created life, he created matter,all out of his own energy it didnt just pop out of nowhere...we're not here by some random luck either, everything has been engineered, designed by God...Amen! PS: come on, is that really so hard to accept? You like the monkey/fish/microbe explanation better? Come on, a fish with arms???

September 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

Gina

@brobin
Nice!

September 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

John T Draper

Osama: Scientists don't believe life 'popped out of nowhere.' But it's interesting that you have a problem with that and think god has 'always been there.' So, nothing can come from nothing, but god was always there. And you have no problem with saying that?

By the way, energy is created all the time. Strike a match and see for yourself.

September 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

XO

@John can you keep things in conversation context please. I am talking with a fellow believer here with the underpinnings of religious text here. Him and I believe everything humans can observe has been created. Outside of this fellow believer conversation it's understood that what we are talking about does not imply in the scientific circles. We are obviously having a metaphysical conversation (not simply a scientific one).

You and I JUST demonstrated in another post that there are limits to logic and Science (above).

@brobin You are correct. I am making this assumption as indicated in my other sub post.

NOTE: This was not meant to be a root post. My browser did not load all of the HTML and corresponding script code. This post was (meant) as a reply to a fellow believer.

September 8, 2011 at 4:38 pm |

XO

@John Many scientist are implying that Universe has spontaneously came into existence. In my opinion, this is pretty much the same thing. I don't have a problem with it. I suppose it appears like this (they correctly presume) to an unbelieving scientist (Hebrews 11:3).

September 8, 2011 at 4:45 pm |

STLBroker

Evolution disproves itself. On the one hand it says that it takes an incredibly long time for the smallest changes to occur and on the other hand it can't explain the break neck speed with which we went from monkey to man.

I am a believer but I don't think that Genesis needs to be taken literally. How would you explain genetic engineering and quantum physics to a 3 year old? You would come up with a simplistic explaination that they could understand. That is all God did in my opinion when he explained the creation of the universe to Moses. Put it in terms that he could understand.

September 8, 2011 at 5:06 pm |

XO

@STLBroker I've often wondered this as well. On a evolutionary time scales, we made the jump awfully quick. And we've only recently spanned this globe (on large time scales). Sort of odd- we've just exploded in knowledge and spanning this globe. This dwarfs scales ridiculously.

September 8, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

IgM

If you're going to use science to try to back up your claim, please use it correctly. It is not possible to clone a female from a male. A clone means that all of the genetic material is identical, and men and women have different chromosomes...

September 8, 2011 at 5:18 pm |

John T Draper

XO: You're kicking me out of the thread? Sorry, this is a public discussion board. I will comment as I see fit; I don't require your permission.

And who, exactly, is this straw man you keep referring to? Everything I have said is a direct response to your own argument. Perhaps you need to refresh your memory on what the straw man fallacy is.

September 8, 2011 at 5:23 pm |

Sean

@STLbroke
“I am a believer but I don't think that Genesis needs to be taken literally”

The cry of the desperate. When logic, reason and science is contradictory to your beliefs, change your belief to be supported by it. Please show me the scripter that says: Don’t take this literally but….

“How would you explain genetic engineering and quantum physics to a 3 year old?”

Moses wasn’t 3 at the time. Are you telling us ‘God’ with all his power and wisdom couldn’t come up with a way to explain how he created the world? Maybe even increases Moses’s intellect with the snap of his fingers?

@John
I never implied this to be science.:
"Where did you get the idea that every creation needs a creator? That's not science, it's a sound bite."

This 'obviously' is not a scientific remark. In my prior response I mentioned that my post was intended for a fellow believer. NOTE: Christians do hold that the Universe and everything in it was created- hence creation.

You keep cherry picking comments and misrepresenting them (straw man).

September 8, 2011 at 5:35 pm |

XO

@IgM You're correct. Thanks for the correction. The higher point still remains. This particular (Genesis) account has been reproduced in labs.

September 8, 2011 at 5:40 pm |

Lillianne

If your theory is correct, then who created god? what created god?

September 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm |

John T Draper

XO: Thanks for the clasrification. It wasn't needed. You made a public comment in a public forum and I chose to respond. That's my perogative.

Please tell me where I put words in your mouth. You said that every creation requires a creator and I simply said it was nonsense. Because it is. Whatever you meant by 'creation,' it's still nonsense. To a caveman, perhaps, the sudden appearance of a mountain may lead him to believe that it is the product of some unseen hand. But that caveman doesn't know a thing about plate techtonics. It seems logical to him; it's just wrong.

I also made another comment that you've refused to address. How could you, on the one hand state that every creation requires a creator then on the other hand say that rule doesn't apply to god? Why is god the exception to that made-up rule? Even if by 'every creation' you meant, 'everything,' isn't god part of everything? Why doesn't he require a creator to exist?

September 8, 2011 at 6:01 pm |

XO

@Lillianne Tehologically (not scientifically) speaking, God was not created. According to Scripture God always existed. Moses asked for His name. The response: I AM WHO I AM. Christ (later) claimed to be I AM.

God always existed and always will exist. Philosophically speaking, this is very consistent with one possessing an eternal nature.

God existed before all things. Everything begins and ends with Him. Nothing that exists would exist if He did not create it. The very words I am using to talk about Him right now would not even exist. He is before all things. Everything was created by Him. There is no discussion about Him not existing (it's sort of silly to even consider).

NOTE: Moses did not ask Him if he was "eternal" or "who created Him". He just asked Him for a name. God just replied back with a seemingly nameless sort of reply that indicates His nature.

He is so predominantly eternal, that His name is such. He is "I AM", the eternal one. He cannot not exist.

September 8, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

John T Draper

How could anything exist before the existance of things? Isn't god a thing?

I'm especially curious about your comment that this idea is 'very consistent with one possessing an eternal nature.' How many such eternal things are there for it to be 'consistent with'? If god is the only 'eternal' thing in the universe than I think you mean to say, 'inconsitent.' How do you explain that god is the single exception to this rule?

September 8, 2011 at 6:16 pm |

XO

@John Coincidentally I just our last request in reply to Lillianne.

Adding to this point: It is illogical (and non-scientific) to think God always existed.

On theological and philosophical notes this 'can' make sense. And the Bible is very clear that logic and reason has been cross wired. It also explains why it has been done. Love is the greater good.

1 Corinthians 3
18Do not deceive yourselves. If any one of you thinks he is wise by the standards of this age, he should become a "fool" so that he may become wise. 19For the wisdom of this world is foolishness in God's sight. As it is written: "He catches the wise in their craftiness"[a]; 20and again, "The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."[b] 21So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, 22whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas[c] or the world or life or death or the present or the future—all are yours, 23and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God.

September 8, 2011 at 6:17 pm |

John T Draper

XO: Thanks for the sermon. However, I do own a bible and I have read it.

Your answer simply doesn't make sense. On the one hand you admit that there is no logic to your argument and on the other hand you claim the bible has its own special 'logic.' And to prove it, you quote it, as if the bible has some special importance as a reference. According to your quote from Corinthians, god hates thinkers. It's a wonder then, that he would make us that way.

Sorry, your 'love is better than logic' idea holds no water. I still love my children. I love my dog. I love pizza. That doesn't mean when I look at the sky, I think it's green. The sky is still blue, no matter how much love I have in my heart.

September 8, 2011 at 6:26 pm |

XO

@John

You're now venturing into a theological domain.

God is outside of the Universe. He existed before creation and time. 2 Chronicles 2:6: Not even the highest heavens can contain him!

Also, God was never alone. Or, God was not alone in eternity. Scripture is clear that the God-head consists of 3 beings (Father, Son Holy Spirit). God loved the Son so much that He wanted to create many more like Him.

Eternity does exist (according to Science). You are a created being, created in l x w x h. You exist in space/time. God does not.

September 8, 2011 at 6:29 pm |

XO

@John The Bible is full of logic. A casual read of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs indicates this.

Let's start with a definition of Sin. Sin is, missing the mark. Here's a Biblical definition from Romans 14:23 (not everyone is inclined to reference Scripture, so I'll include the txt here):
"everything that does not come from faith is sin."

As I implied in the the Corinthians txt, God confounds certain man-prioritized wisdom. The wisdom man uses in rebellion against God.

God is looking for people fit to live with Him in eternity. Will Smith's Character did a similar thing in Seven Pounds.

Here's another txt that further explains the point:
2 Thessalonians 2 9-12
He will use all sorts of displays of power through signs and wonders that serve the lie, 10 and all the ways that wickedness deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11 For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12 and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

PS: Love is relative. People who perished in the flood loved their children too. They loved them so much that they lulled them into hell right along with them. (NOTE: I use hell in the misunderstood traditional sense that most Christian ascribe to). Some mother's love their kids so much, that they kill them before committing suicide.

September 8, 2011 at 6:42 pm |

XO

Let's not kid ourselves. Most use science as a vehicle to rebel against God. Just as the people of Babel were trying to make a name for themselves, science is being used to establish a name of humanity.

In the same (rebellious) spirit we are leaching satellites, probes telescopes into space to determine origins. We are looking for life. The same presupposition that goes into amusing life (statistically speaking) exist in the Universe can be used to assume a creator.

God cannot be mocked. (Galatians 6:7 Do not be deceived: God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows).

People are only deceiving themselves by cherry-picking scriptures, creating sophisticated fig-leaf red-herring arguments. to hide behind. I mean, it's obvious why people resists the Bible (not referring to religion). They do not want to be accountable to God. And when I speak of accountability, I referring to the simple sins: sexual immorality, killing (abortion), lust. Just be honest with yourself. Stop being a coward and just admit it. Curse God in this forum right now. What do you have to lose? I know you won't curse God here in this forum, you do not have enough faith in your belief system to do so.

September 8, 2011 at 6:56 pm |

John T Draper

XO: It's hard to take you seriously. On the one hand, you say that nothing can exist without a creator and on the other hand you say that 'god' is the exception to this rule. That he and his fellow gods (spirit and holy ghost, whatever those are) exist outside of space-time. Have you really thought this through?

Please tell me how everything exists in the universe with the single exception of an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that exists outside of it, yet controls everything in it. What proof do you have of such an extraordinary assertion?

And please stop quoting the bible to me. It has no more significance to this discussion than quoting Paul Bunyan or any other work of fiction. Among other horrors, the bible contains explicit instructions from god on how one may take their enemy's children as slaves. The bible has no authority, scientifically or morally.

I'd admire you. You're obviously a smart person and a deep thinker. And I respect your persistence in holding up your end of this debate. But I'm distressed that a good, thoughtful person such as yourself would regard the bible with any authority.

September 8, 2011 at 6:57 pm |

XO

@John And you are asking very good questions. All of which I had myself. Both of us have gotten the attention of many folks in this forum. I admire you as well John. I'm sure we both agree that there is a limitation in this forum to convey ideas across as intended.

What I mean by everything is the material creation. God is invisible, non-material as far as this is concerned, viz, He is not made of atoms.

I want to apologize for the stubborn sternness I've shown in this discussion. You are a good man and being completely honest.

I would not mind us continuing this discussion in email or over the phone if you would like. I am not into proselytizing people, and I abhor religion.

Like you, I questioned God with all I had. I'll admit, i did not like a lot of what I heard. If I can put it accurately, I've come close to wanting to give into delusion. Other times, truth was so painful I asked to die.

And you're also correct about what you say about the Bible. On it's own, it's just txt on paper. No authority in and of itself. There are short comings in human syntax. Read it without God, and you get religion. And how would God expect a blind and deaf person to come to Him.

xoneill-at-hotmail-dot-com

September 8, 2011 at 7:12 pm |

XO

@John Wanted to comment about the point you made about kids being slaves. There's a great deal of text in the Bible that can make a person shake their head in disgust. It was difficult to understand how a God could order babies to be cut out of the womb of a human.(very disturbing).

Understandings I've been given came with a great deal of pain. I would say, if this is so, why why even create us. I am not one that gives into things easily. The initial years of my life have prepare me for the answers that I would eventually receive.

The population of this planet was approximately 1billion at the time of the flood according to even the most conservative models. Only 8 made it to the other side of the flood. I scratched my head concerning this for a very long time. I was like STOP, there's something wrong with this picture. I could not get past this for many years. 8 out of a bullion!!! I wouldn't want to meet a God like this in a dark alley.

I do understand things better, but I had to be dragged to hell and back for it to make any justifiable sense.

September 8, 2011 at 7:28 pm |

XO

Signing off... xoneill-at-hotmail-dotcom

September 8, 2011 at 7:31 pm |

Muddy

The biggest problem with Creationism is the Question they never answer.
Where Did GOD (or the Gods and Goddesses) come from in the first place?
Its far easier to believe that complexity rose out of a big band through fairly well defined and studied processes, than assume that an all powerful and all knowing Creator just was? Did God evolve somewhere else? Is God part of a God Civilization? There are possible answers for this, but they do not fit the traditional translations of the Bible well. Some possible answers.

1. God(dess) created the Universe so it appears to be 4 billion years old because he was copying another universe, or because that was needed to make it work. (though this does not address the whole god origin issue.)
2. The Universe was Chaos, and in that Chaos all things happened, but were short lived until God was created by chance and was strong enough to hold his form, and then over millions of years became wise.
3. We are in a computer program, strange there is some evidence which might support this, such as Quantum Physics.
4. God is a computer left over from the last bang, collapse cycle.

God just is, which makes no sense whatsoever.

September 9, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

Michelle

XO said "Most use science as a vehicle to rebel against God. " I use science to find new treatments for cancer. And I don't think XO understands science. Or scientists.

September 12, 2011 at 10:08 am |

beenthere

@John T – "By the way, energy is created all the time. Strike a match and see for yourself" LOL – That is not creating energy, that is transforming it... Fact is we have a set amount of energy in this universe. None can be created nor any removed. This is basic stuff man! If you are going to argue a case, be sure to know the facts.

September 13, 2011 at 8:35 pm |

Isaac

you should try reading a book NOT called the bible. We'll wait for you here in reality.

September 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

ELIF

some people say here the bible is static , like the ten commandments. dont kill , dont steal dont worship ideals, , or love your enemy , love ur like ur self or pray for people who perscutes u. I guess hitler and other dictators like him beliieved in evoultion and science and conculde those laws r old dont apply to them. since we our ancestors were monkeys and white race is uperior to all others and smarter. if u raed any part of bible how God explain to them about hygene , the universe and creation to the people you call idiots. Like the way they cloth jesus at his burial. please read if u can the bible not unless your afraid of whtas in store for u people . Noah people did not repent , nor sodom , nor the israel people or may others. Its great we get to all express our opinions , but lets our facts staright. The theory of evoultion and the not the fact of evoultion that gets me confused. Fact or theory. reality or fiction, which is it. so many smart people express their views. atheist can't even say 100% if their is a God since the probablity of them spending eternity searching the universe is impossible for any one of us.

September 8, 2011 at 5:45 pm |

earth2loons

The evidence for evolution within certain limits is undeniable. That does not mean that God did not create through and alongside evolution. And it does not eliminate the possibliity of fiat miracles of creation along the way either. Don't take such a hard line stance. You may be right to a point, but you can easily illustrate your lack of scientific knowledge and hurt your case. You can defend your beliefs without denying all of science. And trying to deny all of science is a losing proposition because many findings of science reveal things reveal truth. It is not always easy to distinguish between faulty science, but you need to be more critical and informed to make statements like you are doing.

September 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

G0D

jerry, you are one of my most impressive creations... completely retarded, and yet still some how able to breath on your own. You must not be allowed to use a fork, for fear of you stabbing yourself in the face when you eat...

September 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

stemcell

My side hurts from that one! Too funny.

September 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

LMMFAS

September 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm |

johann1965

Who are you who is so wise in the ways of science?

September 8, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

witness

Amen to that.

September 8, 2011 at 3:49 pm |

Jon

G0D, Why do you create people like Jerry? Have you no heart? Have you no soul?

September 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm |

Jon

And G)D, what did I do to make you want my life to be so miserable? (And G0D, please tell those people at CNN that, if they dont want me to post the same comment twice, they should close the comment window when I click Post.)

September 8, 2011 at 3:59 pm |

capnmike

It is amazing that there are so many gullible brainwashed fools that really believe some imaginary "god" even exists, let alone actually created anything. What pure hogwash.

September 8, 2011 at 3:07 pm |

Commentator

More amazing still is people like you who actually believe that everything was made by pure chance and that life "magically" evolved from lifeless molecules to complex organisms.

September 8, 2011 at 4:15 pm |

Necrosis

@Commentator: It's even more amazing when people like you make unjustifiable assumptions about what other people believe. Just because capnmike does not believe that we were created by some invisible, bearded sky daddy does not mean he believe's this all happened by chance. That does not necessarily follow. There are other explanations for the existence of this universe other than a creator or random chance. Think. Please!

September 8, 2011 at 5:04 pm |

McJesus

What is more likely: That the earth is billions of years old as supported by testable evidence. Or that a garden, two humans, and a talking snake started it all. DUH

September 8, 2011 at 5:12 pm |

Greg

Jerry,

You are not very bright.

September 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

paucity

According to the Bible, how many people has God killed?

Old Testament:

Drowning for being evil - Genesis 6:8 – 7 million (estimated world population in 3000 BCE. Source: Colin McEvedy and Richard Jones, 1978, "Atlas of World Population History," Facts on File, New York, ISBN 0-7139-1031-3.).
To be on the safe side, I will use 7 million as Bishop Usher [1581-1856] calculated Noah’s flood occurred in 2348 BCE and the population was higher in 2400 BCE than in 3000 BCE.

Since the Bible is the word of God, then He has confessed to at least 7 million murders (I may have missed a few hundred thousand) with the promise of billions more to come. Adolf would have been proud. Adolf attempted total genocide and failed. God succeeded if you count wiping out all humanity except for a few in a boat as genocide.

They executed Timothy LeVeigh for killing only a 168.

And people revere this self-confessed serial killer as their god? Maybe there is a good reason Christians say they "fear the Lord".

This is the full list of people that were killed by Satan himself, according to the Old and New Testament books of the Bible. He's a long way behind God on this one.

Job's children and servants (possibly slaves). Satan thought Job wasn't as good as he looked and when trouble and death came he would renounce his belief so God told him he could test him. God allowed Satan to kill Job's children and servants to test Job in order to see how righteous he was.

Yep, that's all, one guy's kids and servants, and even those were on a contract basis so God could test Job. Not so good for the Prince of All Evil.

Or maybe the title "Prince of All Evil" was given to the wrong deity.

September 8, 2011 at 3:12 pm |

John T Draper

Yes, but all of those murders were just a part of god's great plan. What that plan is, is a mystery to our puny brains, but rest assured, there's a plan, alright.

Of course, we have no problem understanding god's plan when good things happen to us. In fact, turn on the tv any time of the day and you will find numerous evangelists telling us what god thinks and wants from us. Usually, it's money. As George Carlin said, he can create planets from nothing, but he's just no good with money and requires it endless amounts.

Sarcasm aside, if one were to believe the bible is a factual account of real events, one must conclude that god is a petty, jealous mass murderer with anger management issues.

September 8, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

paucity

John T Draper - Hitler had a great plan also

September 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm |

vintage 274

Bishop Usher was a seventeenth century man who tried very hard to calculate the age of the Earth using Biblical stories alone. Earnest but very flawed. He did not have the tools with which to calculate the molecular evidence of the age of, for instance, rocks or bones. He had limited fossil evidence available to him at the time. His calculations were hugely flawed. By YOUR calculations, all of Egypt in 3,000 BCE would have been wiped out. We KNOW from recorded history that just did not happen, although the Nile DID flood and wipe out some people on occasion. To say that the whole world flooded at a date noted in the Bible is to assume that the writers of the Bible had knowledge of the entire Earth. There is scientific evidence of a great natural disaster in the Middle East at a date approximating the Biblical flood. Like Katrina. But to assume that the entire WORLD was flooded and the population wiped out when we KNOW that the civilizations of the Americas and of Egypt were alive and well during and after that time is very faulty thinking. Children are meant to know from the story of Hansel and Gretel that to wander off alone is to invite calamity. It's a wonderful allegory. But that does NOT mean that there are witches living in gingerbread houses in the woods of Europe. Science has proven poor Mr. Usher to be a well-meaning individual with VERY FLAWED information.

September 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm |

steve samples

There was only 7 million population just 5000 years ago, and you say that we have been here for millions of years? There must have been some very lonely people in all of that long history with such a small population.

September 8, 2011 at 3:53 pm |

McJesus

Wow. Don't even know where to begin with that last one. Must be homeskooled.

September 8, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

McJesus

... and yes "homeskooled" was purposefully spelled in that manner

September 8, 2011 at 5:16 pm |

MM

You're number for 2 Kings 19:35 should be 185,000, I think. An Angel killed 185,000 which is more than Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Now, it sounds like you just don't like it. So are you just going to ignore it? The Bible is history. Truth is truth. One day the earth will be burned up completely (2 Tim 3:10) and God will be the one to burn it up. God is sovereign (that means he can do that without asking anyone). You don't like it because you are evil. Do you understand? God is holy. But don't just turn the light out because you don't like what you see. See?

September 8, 2011 at 6:18 pm |

bahminj

As the Creator and possessor of all things God can take or kill whom ever He pleases. " I will bless whom I want to bless and curse whim I want to curse.

September 10, 2011 at 11:45 am |

Michael

To all people in this thread that are up in arms: Christianity has nothing to do with proving its set of dates, nor disproving Scientific theory. Evolutionary theory only contradicts Christian beliefs if you hold to a literal -unintellectual false view of Biblical study. Please refrain from speaking for all Christians. You are making us look more and more like Chicken little, and less and less like reputable representatives of a very valid belief structure.

To everyone else, just like every other facet of human existance, usually, the idiots are the ones that scream the loudest, as a ferverent Christian, and student of science, I can say that I am sorry the people on here have taken the time to post. This should be a post for science and those who are interested, and guys like Jerry on here ruin that. Please do not think that he speaks for all of us

September 8, 2011 at 3:19 pm |

dtchemist

well, michael, while i despise all of religion and think it is all intolerable and foolhardy, i appreciate your much more honest approach and applaud your efforts

September 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm |

paucity

Agreed ... I made a rather long post asking why people believe in God. While this is not the place, I was trying to stir up a shit storm for the pure entertainment ut would provide

September 8, 2011 at 3:44 pm |

SDFrankie

Valid belief structure? The core of Christianity is that God incarnated himself as his own son so that he could be a blood sacrifice to himself to atone for people being the way he made them! I don't care how literally you do or don't read the Bible, that is just plain loony. And that's the core. That's not the weird stuff. Valid belief structure? What are you smoking?

September 8, 2011 at 4:11 pm |

lemmings

The Bible is a man created document meant to control the unwashed masses thru their fear of going to "Hell" if you do this action or don't do that action. Evolution of species determined thru fossil remains is cold hard fact. Not all the puzzle pieces have been found yet, but truly, just stare at a skull of, lets say homo habilis, and you can CLEARLY see evolution in progress. Open your eyes and look.

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

vintage 274

Nor does it say in the Bible that God created humans EXACTLY as they are today. We have evolutionary evidence of changes in human beings within the past 200 years. We are taller than our ancestors, and our children are taller than the two generations before us. Girls reach puberty at a much younger age than they ever did. These are evolutionary changes within the species whether you wish to recognize that or not. I struggle to understand why Creationists do not marvel at the great genius that is evolution. In an Earth that has been modifying itself since its beginning, that has an ever changing climate, the changes that occur among species to adapt to the changes in the earth are miraculous and awe inspiring. The problem with Creationists is they are stuck on the idea of a human lineage or a family tree, so they deny all natural selection which is occurring all around us. Many scientists believe in a Creation story and find it absolutely compatible with the great mystery and wonder of Evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm |

KrashUndBurn

"""Nor does it say in the Bible that God created humans EXACTLY as they are today."""

This god created man in his own image, according to the book. By this logic, then, such a god would be more ape-like than human.

Also, I highly doubt that "many scientists" believe in a creation story.

September 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

elle

It doesn't matter what the book said. the book was written by man. There may or may not be a god, but the idea that the bible is literal is ridiculous. Only someone brainwashed by their parents would believe that. WHich is why people of different cultures believe different versions of the brainwashing

September 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

littleBearCB

God lives outside time. We are only discovering hints on how God accomplished his 'tasks...' 'Evolution' and 'Creationism' no way discount each other. In fact they fit together rather well...

September 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

ChaoticDreams

You know, time exists in our universe, and may likely not exist in others, so these other universes as described in M-Theory have always existed (as you quaintly said "outside of time"). So two different things (your god and other universes) exist outside of time, yet you use the idea that god exists outside of time to justify his existance, then turn around and claim that he created these universes THAT HAVE ALSO ALWAYS EXISTED AND OUTSIDE OF TIME. Lunacy.

September 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm |

Bible Clown

Really? I read a comic book once that said aliens came down from space and we are their descendents. There's a lot of theories in books.

September 8, 2011 at 4:29 pm |

Jennifer

Didn't Adam and Eve only give birth to boys????????????? So unless they were having sex with mom , how did we procreate.

September 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

ChaoticDreams

*Stand up and start applauding

September 8, 2011 at 4:57 pm |

KDeb

Actually Genesis says they had a lot of other children, too.

Genesis 5:4 "The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters."

September 10, 2011 at 10:22 pm |

fimeilleur

Ok, if death was introduced after they were banished from the garden, Seth was supposedly born after the banishment, you don't find it odd that he still lived 800 years? and the only recorded people to live "that long" are found ONLY in the Bible? This is acceptable to you? Let alone the incest part...

If Adam and Eve were the only two that God created, when Cain killed able, he moved into a village with his wife... WHERE THE !@#$ DID SHE COME FROM? WHERE DID THE VILLAGERS COME FROM?

September 10, 2011 at 10:50 pm |

Open Minded

OK so Adam & eve where created by God and they reproduce to have children. Then what? How does an untainted bloodline go from there without inbreeding? Does Adam sleep with his daughters? Eve with her sons? Do the sons and daughters sleep with each other? Was in a combination? Also what race was Adam & Eve? Where they white? If so then how did asians, blacks, etc come about?

September 8, 2011 at 5:13 pm |

Kyle

I do believe the bible explains this... aliens, I mean angels were copulating with humans and producing half-breeds called Nephilim or however it's spelled. Either way, the story is a bunch of crap.

September 8, 2011 at 5:46 pm |

Open Minded

But I thought per the bible the aliens I mean angels do not have the necessary equipment for the task! Also I agree, it is crap.

September 8, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

kpete

where do the dinosaurs fall in here? I guess I'm a little confused.

September 10, 2011 at 1:48 am |

the joker

Hey Mr. Lewis.....La la la nice saying!

September 10, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

XO

f I came across a perfectly man-made diamond (made in a matter of hours) that I could not distinguished from a naturally occurring diamond, I would date it based on what I understand to be the time needed for it to occur. And I would be completely wrong.

For many years no one believed that killer whales lived beyond 60 years. We have recently discovered a killer whale that's 90 years old. Upon examining a tooth, the whale appears to be 60 years old. Apparently, beyond a certain age, teeth stop aging. Many such errors are made in science.

This is a typical case of the limits of logic. Science observes something, it fills gaps in based on other observations and then makes an educated guess. This works in many scenarios, but not all. The key the past is not always the present. Many factors are relative.

September 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

John T Draper

Your argument is specious. Just because you don't understand carbon dating doesn't mean it's a mystery.

September 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

XO

(Carefully) read what I posted again. I did not raise any concerns about carbon dating techniques.

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

John T Draper

Thanks, but once was enough.

If you see a diamond and assume it's thousands of years old, then you're an idiot. Every ninth grader knows we can make artificial diamonds.

I understand your point; I've heard it a thousand times: simple observation is not enough. Not everything can be gleaned by the facts at hand. You're correct. But nobody ever said it was.

Yes, science can be wrong. That's why it continues to change. The difference between faith and science is that science has no fear of being wrong because when we find out we were wrong, we simply change our minds. Christians haven't changed their minds for over two thousand years.

Good try, though.

September 8, 2011 at 3:16 pm |

XO

It was hypothetical. Of course we cannot make a perfect man-made diamond. Even a 9th-grader understands this.

I'm simply indicating the limits of logic (like any logical person would). Apparently, you are logical. However, there are many illogical statements being made in this thread.

When science making statements (not guesses) that stars gave us life, that's not good science.

September 8, 2011 at 3:35 pm |

John T Draper

Thanks for clarifying. However, your argument is still specious.

So, logic can not tell us everything. Granted. So? Does that mean we throw away the science that logic can prove? Does it mean that everything we know is wrong? Does it mean there's no point in trying to extrapolate every, tiny bit of knowledge we can because there may be some information missing?

Einstein said, "the more we know, the more we know." Simply throwing away all the science we have for the science we don't have would make us morons. Most importantly, the correctness of science has no bearing whatsoever on the incorrectness of superstition and magical thinking.

September 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

stemcell

Been a while since I've seen this good of remarks. Damn good work John.

OX
Are you saying that John is me? I could only wish I could express my thoughts in words as well as he does. If your think that he is doing that then your and idiot.

September 8, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

XO

@stemcell What? yes I am addressing John. But you confused me either way.

Other than the straw man positions and introducing arguments I've never made out of desire to continue the debate- John and I are agreeing here.

September 8, 2011 at 4:49 pm |

XOO

@stemcell What? yes I am addressing John. But you confused me either way.

Other than the straw man positions and introducing arguments I've never made out of desire to continue the debate- John and I are agreeing here...

September 8, 2011 at 4:51 pm |

Michael

I agree that, things may not be as they appear to be. However, the same argument goes for the assertion that the Universe was created last Tuesday complete with our false memories/history. There is no way to disprove this. In fact, this is the VERY REASON why it is not a valid scientific hypothesis. Similarly with the idea that God created the Cosmos (and idea that I personally share); there is no way to disprove this, that is why it is not science.

Now, it might be true the Universe was created last Tuesday, I will freely admit it. But at some point you have to take the possibilities and discard the ones that don't make testable predictions.

September 8, 2011 at 3:42 pm |

XO

@Michael well put. As far as false memories/histories are concerned, there are logical ways to explanations. For instance, if the Universe was wound-up and created at the speed of light, the things we observe really did occur (time lapse camera). This is observed in the concluding paragraphs Jonah.

Humans not capable of certain things or have certain knowledge does not make it not possible. What's not possible for us today, may be tomorrow.

Then, as you indicate, we must have faith for the divine nature of God.

September 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm |

Matt

I am an atheist and if you believe that god created the universe, the burden of proof is on YOU, not the other way around... It is your stupid idea, YOU prove that god exists...

September 8, 2011 at 3:58 pm |

XO

@Marr Funny, I use to say this to atheists 20 years ago.

September 8, 2011 at 4:09 pm |

Bible Clown

Christians are supposed to possess all of Jesus' magic powers. They can raise the dead ans heal the sick by the power of faith. It says so in the Bible. That's testable, and Christians always fail the test. Even Jesus could not restore an amputated limb. Get back to me when that changes.

September 8, 2011 at 4:33 pm |

Matt

Actually XO, atheism is the most natural thing... Religion is taught by your parents... Religion is YOUR idea... You prove it... To say me to prove that god doesnt exist is just as idiotic as me proving unicorns dont exist, since I do not believe in them... You are a hypocrite XO

@Matt As someone else mentioned in this forum... Thomas Jefferson thought meteorites were an old wives' tale since rocks can't fall from the sky. He never saw one fall or met a trustworthy witness, and he was wrong.

September 8, 2011 at 5:51 pm |

Atheist

You are correct sir, metorites do not exist and cannot be proven. god = meteorites.

September 8, 2011 at 6:17 pm |

Kyle

One cannot disprove what does not exist.

If you want to believe in all the jesus crap, then you might want to read the passages in the bible, quotes from jesus, where he states that he will return before some of his followers saw death. Just to clarify, he was speaking to people of his time, directly to them. He said he'd come back within their generation.

Considering that muslims believe jesus was a prophet, then the lies of jesus also negate the myth of islam as much as it does christianity. There are plenty of contradictions in the bible and koran that completely destroy these religions from the inside by their own words.

Therefore we can deduce that the christian and muslim gods do not exist.

How about the jewish god?

Old testament... ten commandments. Let's see, Moses gets ten commandments, and they are destroyed. It is alleged that god promises that he will write down the SAME commandments. What does this alleged god do? Writes down a different set of commandments. The jewish god lies as well, negating this deity.

As you can see, it's not difficult to debunk the three most popular religions completely with a few words, taken directly from religious texts that outline these entire belief systems.

The bible by the way, isn't the whole bible. If you actually read the stupid thing, you'll find that it references other books of the bible. Only problem is that those books were not included in the bible. So what does this mean? Since the bible was not complete, then everyone that believes in it is inherently doomed since they never got the full message.

Welcome to reality.

September 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm |

Realist4U

OK so here's a question:

When we clone a human being, which will probably be in the next several decades, I'm assuming that most christians, muslims, etc... will have no problem killing such a person.

Why? Because the cloned individual was never conceived (a sperm and egg were not fuse), and therefore this individual will have never been 'created'...

Oh, and one other thing regarding the Big Bang and the whole god creating everything...Who created god? and if god wasn't created, i.e. "he's always been there", maybe Reality wasn't created, and has always been there...Maybe Reality has the unique ability to just spontaneously create itself or maybe it has no beginning. Maybe it has all the wonderful qualities of a god, minus the whole sentience and/or caring about humans...

just some food for thought... some of you are clearly starving.

September 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

XO

God cloned Eve from Adam's rib after causing him to go into a deep sleep. We have already demonstrated this in a lab. We're just not being intellectually honest with ourselves.

We say things are impossible based on them being possible to us. When they become possible to us, then we play stupid.

Time does not exist outside of L x W x H. Time does not exist without space. We've already proven the possibility of eternity. This is where God dwells. He's always existed, He's invisible to our material based senses. Science is proclaiming things have came into existence from nothing. I guess that's how one would describe it from our perspective.: Hebrews 11:3, "By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen (the physical universe of earth, sun, moon, and stars) is NOT MADE OUT OF WHAT WAS VISIBLE."

September 8, 2011 at 4:22 pm |

XO

@vintage274 You're implying things that I have not said.

Obviously I was posing a hypothetical argument concerning the diamond post. I debated using the word hypothetical for those who could not derive that from context.

You're wrong about your comment on the tooth. The composition of the tooth does not change much beyond 60 years of age. I'm sure this will be taken into account in future age determination studies. I don't think the technique will be entirely thrown away (it is still mostly reliable). I am certain they will determine better age determining techniques.

As for the rest of what you wrote... stray man. I did not imply anything remarked on.

September 8, 2011 at 5:11 pm |

Realist

you call that reality, you only wallow in delusion. Get a hobby.

September 11, 2011 at 12:04 pm |

Not an idiot like XO

XO,

Science has shown that pigs can fly under their own power, thus there is no god.

(You probably won't see how this ridicules your argument. /sigh)

September 12, 2011 at 5:54 pm |

vintage 274

Wow. Your arguments are so scientifically faulty, it's frightening. An artificial diamond is easily distinguished by experts from a natural one. Because YOU don't know how to do that is does not not negate the existence of science. Science doe not eyeball something, draw an immediate conclusion, and call it fact. Because a whale was THOUGHT to have lived to age 60 does not deny its existence. The science was solid. The whale, by scientific knowledge, lived to AT LEAST 60 or an AVERAGE of 60 according to obeservation. If observation then shows that the whale actually lived to age 90, the time line for the whale would be extended. Adding knowledge to prior knowledge is what science is all about. It in no way negates the original FACTS. Facts are created by observation and careful measurement on a CONTINUING basis. Science does not see ONE occurrence of something and call it FACT. That's exactly why this article, to which few of the postings even allude, states that there are various theories about the new skeletal findings. Anthropology needs more findings to draw accurate conclusions. Your ideas about what science does are very troubling. They show a lack of scientific understanding, but you seem to be convinced you know what you're talking about.

September 8, 2011 at 3:59 pm |

XO

@vintage274 You're implying things that I have not said.

Obviously I was posing a hypothetical argument concerning the diamond post. I debated using the word hypothetical for those who could not derive that from context.

You're wrong about your comment on the tooth. The composition of the tooth does not change much beyond 60 years of age. I'm sure this will be taken into account in future age determination studies. I don't think the technique will be entirely thrown away (it is still mostly reliable). I am certain they will determine better age determining techniques.

As for the rest of what you wrote... stray man. I did not imply anything remarked on...

September 8, 2011 at 5:11 pm |

Bible Clown

Vin, XO seems to be pro-science and is pointing out that science expects missing links and fragmentary evidence at first. He's saying you can't judge stuff on appearance and hunches. Thomas Jefferson thought meteorites were an old wives' tale since rocks can't fall from the sky. He never saw one fall or met a trustworthy witness, and he was wrong.

September 8, 2011 at 5:19 pm |

XO

@Bible Clown thanks. Yes I am pro science. There's a lot of good science out there 9and a lot of bad science). I know you and I aware that It's very difficult for people to keep belief systems out interpretation.

September 8, 2011 at 5:25 pm |

XO

@stemcell If you're capable of discernment, we're agreeing with each other. Minus the parts John is taking out of context and new arguments that are being introduced out of a desire to continue this discussion.

September 8, 2011 at 4:06 pm |

stemcell

Oh, sorry.

September 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

XOO

No problemo sir.

September 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

Paul

I think the difference is that now that we know that the tooth is not a valid indicator of age, we will search for another way to get that data on killer whales. And we also now know that they can live to be 90 years old. Knowledge progresses. You can't will knowledge away, or deny that 2+2=4. Calculus is an elegant form of approximation, yet it is good enough to design airplanes and rockets. Science may not be perfect, but it attempts to be, which cannot be always said for fundamentalists who reject hypothesis out of hand if it does not agree with their world view..

September 8, 2011 at 4:51 pm |

XOO

@Paul Well put!

September 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm |

isolate

IF you came across a perfect man-made diamond it would only mean that humankind had beat nature at its own game again. No naturally-occurring diamond is perfect. If you ever looked at a "flawless" naturally-occurring blue-white diamond under a jeweler's microscope you'd see flaws galore. Switch on the polarizer and strain patterns unique to natural diamonds will pop out, even under low magnification. Flip on the UV and even more will appear.

That's how a gemologist can tell natural diamonds from the much less valuable HPHT and CVD sort. I've seen "flawless" CVD diamonds under a microscope. It's the first clue they're artificial. Flip on the UV and remove all doubt: the CVD variety will all fluoresce; only extremely rarely will a natural diamond fluoresce.

September 11, 2011 at 9:17 pm |

samhain

how can evolution happen since god created the world only 8000 years ago? hes hanging out just outside our solar system where we cant reach him in heaven, laughing while everyone fights over which version of him is the right one. oh and dinosaurs arent real either.

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

triranosaurausHEX

actually the bible puts the earth more @ 5000 years, and franky that all the proof you need for the existence of GOD. The BIBLE. Suck on those facts!!!!!!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 3:03 pm |

capnmike

There is nothing factual about the bible except that it is sprinkled with the names of various people and locations which MAY have existed, to give it authenticity. If somebody wrote "There was a huge purple dragon in New York", some fools would believe it because New York does actually exist, even though the rest of the statement is a lie.

September 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

SeilnoigileR

Really? Just how did you 'calculate' that figure? Based on the bible? It's fact that the bible is full of errors, mis-translataions and 'edits' by the religious powers of the time to suit their own needs. You believe it to be true because it SAYS it's true. Is there any other document in the world where you'd buy that argument for its own veracity? I bet not, yet because you're told so, you believe it to be so. Good job altering reality to meet your own expectations.

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

David

You might as well substitute the Lord of the Rings for the Bible, for all the sense it makes. If you believe 2nd Paul, "one day is 1000 years and 1000 years is a day". Since God created the Sun a day after creating plant life, there would have been no photosynthesis for 1000 YEARS, hence no survivors until the next planting,1000 years later. You will have to forgive my outburst of free thought, but I learned far more about fact in Science class than Sunday School class.

September 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm |

Realist

Creation science puts even more wholes in the theory of evolution concept.

September 11, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

Tonelok

@Ike
The beauty of science is that it is ever changing and evolving as our understanding of the world expands. When a new thoery comes up (Gravity, relativity) it is scrutinized and tested. If it is found to BEST describe the natural forces it deals with, it becomes an accepted theory until a better theory emerges.
.
So, unlike religion which is static and still has the same understanding of the world from 2000 years ago, science is a evolving(pun intended) with humans as a species.

September 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

John T Draper

It's a shame that every serious, scientific discussion has been hijacked by the religious nutbars. We are quickly becoming a nation of people who are ignorant and proud of it. I, for one, am sick and tired of it.

I'm tired of explaining that 'god' is not an alternative explanation. That when science says it doesn't understand something, it doesn't mean the answer is 'it must be magic'. That a 'theory' is a provable idea, not just some words from a 5,000-year-old book of metaphorical literature. That, after thousands of years, there exists not one single scintila of evidence of a monster in the sky that can conjure up magic at will. That the science they so despise gave them the computers they spew their nonsense from and that the understanding of evolution brought them the medicine they happily – while not gratefully – take and give their children. It's not worth it. They simply close their eyes and shake their heads and chant, 'god, god, god.'

So, I think we need to take the discussion back. We need to stop wasting our time explaining things to people who are too stupid or ignorant or arrogant to listen. We need to do what we do when children interrupt a serious conversation: tell them to go outside and play while the grownups talk.

September 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

Muhammad

You reminded me of my little sister when she hides something and thinks that she tricked us all and that she is grown up and we all are kids. I advise you to sit in a dark room, go over your thoughts and find out who the kid is.

September 8, 2011 at 2:57 pm |

John T Draper

Mo: Thanks for the tip. However, I'll decline.

The truth about the physical world can not be found by sitting in a dark room. That's for people who want to suppress the truth. I will continue to expose myself to as much of the real world as possible and learn all I can. Enjoy your darkness, I prefer the light.

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

BORRRRRRING

Please provide an argument(other than a book) that the Islamic or Christian God created the earth. You have none. You can provide no PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Thats why there are Blasphemy laws in Islam gotta keep the (uneducated/those that cant defend themselves) masses subdued. Dont want to get shot up for saying religion is bullshit or ask any questions.......... But that goes the same in Christianity. I'm sure some right winged nut case in the US would LOVE to make "jesus" laws where you get 20 lashes for saying GOD can blow me. I mean the studies don't lie the more educated socitey gets the less religion is needed. As humans evolve and learn more about the world around them they are needed the fear tactics of religion less and less. the answer " Shut up and just believe" is not good enough for those of use who see the world logically.

September 8, 2011 at 3:15 pm |

stemcell

Mohommad 0 John 1. What a slam dunk!

September 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

You are absolutely correct. When religion comes up in public discourse, I never sit back and do nothing. I try to stop it as quickly as possible so that, like you said, I don't waste any time with other peoples delusions.

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

Jd

Congrats – you won the closed minded Person of the year award for being flexible and open minded. Good job!

September 8, 2011 at 6:45 pm |

Lila

John, they sound like idiots. They prove some people are more evolved than others, that's all I can say.

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

J.C.

Enjoyed your response, and agree wholeheartedly. In my pipe-dream, the citizens of the United States agree to migrate to regions with like-minded souls. Thus all the dopers can move to Oregon, all the religious nuts can have Texas, the Tea Baggers can have Utah, and by the time it gets to atheists hopefully we'll still have a nice state to relocate to. In the end, it won't matter because even if we were to wind up in North Dakota it would still be the most productive, kick-@ss state since the population wouldn't be wasting their time worrying about the flying spaghetti monster.

September 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

johann1965

I gave up on creationists long ago. They are ignorant and stupid...not because they question the science, but because their faith blinds their objective thinking. Arrogance and ignorance make dangerous bedfellows. They are a lost cause and not worth debating.

September 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

FlyGuyInSJ

The trouble with talking with atheists is that they're too blinded by their religion (and if you say atheism isn't a religion, you're a liar to boot) to really engage them in conversation. The Bible makes it quite clear that the Big Bang happened at the will of God, and that evolution also happened at the will of God. Evidence of God is all around, and He has spoken directly to more than a few people, but they rarely tell anyone. Go talk to some former atheists some time, you might find your eyes opened. One of the better Christians I know is a former atheist whose eyes were opened.

September 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

wisdom4u2

Ooooh for heaven sake...'evolution'?!!
'All' the people cannot be duped into believing this ridiculous concept of 'human' beginnings!!!
Say what you want, but you could 'never' get me to accept this crap based on 'monkey' bones!!!
The journal Science is full of ‘junk’ science!!
Why don’t they ever publish all the true, not fiction, evidence that’s been uncovered pointing to the Nephilims….huh, what about that????
Oh, yeah….God forbid they should expose that, then people just might start to realize the story of ‘Creation’ isn‘t bogus!!!

September 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

stemcell

What a troll!

September 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

wisdom4u2

Troll my a ss!!! That was my first comment....you're the dumb a ss 'TROLL'!!! Upset because I don't agree with your gullible self?? ∩┐(◕_◕)┌∩┐ OFF!!

September 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm |

stemcell

Troll urself

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

Fixed

Ooooh for rational thought and evidence based science sake...'religion'?!!
'All' the people cannot be duped into believing this ridiculous concept of 'human' beginnings!!!
Say what you want, but you could 'never' get me to accept this crap based on 'biblical' texts!!!
The journal Religion is full of ‘junk’ religion!!
Why don’t they ever publish all the true, not fiction, evidence that’s been uncovered pointing to the actual truth….huh, what about that????
Oh, yeah….evidence based discovery forbid they should expose that, then people just might start to realize the story of ‘Creation’ is bogus!!!

September 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

get real

hahahaha good one!

September 8, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

johann1965

A creationist's Truth and science's Truth are not the same things. We spead different languages, and the two will never meet.

September 8, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

get real

That sort of thinking in fairy tales is what keeps the ignorant firmly planted in religious control.
I bet you would believe whole heartedly in science if you had a disease they could cure.

September 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

Ban Canard

Actually, accepting stories told to you without even the posibility of there being any evidence to support it, for example, the creation story as presented in the Bible, is closer to gullibility. I would venture to guess that your understanding of science and its methods is limited and hence you can discount the evidence simply because everything for you is a matter of belief and nonbelief.

September 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

monkey bones?

Monkey bones? You are ignorant and it shows. Monkeys are stupid and they eat their own shit, Apes and primates on the other hand are intelligent animals. First of all read a book or two and know the difference between monkeys and apes...then we'll talk.

September 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

GrapeApe

@wisdom4u2-
How very Christian of you.

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

Agrajag

You sit there, in front of a computer that owes its existence to centuries of scientific research and discovery; you eat food and drink water that is safe because we now understand the germ theory of disease; you have a longer projected lifespan than any generation prior to ours, and you cry that science is "junk".

If you want to reject science, go back to living in a cave, cowering at thunder, and drawing pictures of bison in charcoal on a rock for amusement.

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

Greg

http://www.snopes.com/photos/odd/giantman.asp

The nephilim evidence is a hoax. There is no proof that giants ever existed other than the fairy tale...um I mean Old Testament.

September 8, 2011 at 3:37 pm |

Dave

Ok folks please stop and read this I'm interested in what kinds of responses this will get.
Fact, man continues to evolve as we mix races, cultures, and genetics overall. This is a fact.
Proof of Evolution: A Lyger half Lion, Half Tiger larger and stronger than them both. Their Ancestry can be traced quite easily. Dog's are another sign of evolution and you can trace what breeds are "hybrids" or Evolved from what breeds.

Fact: Science can trace man back to the Cro Magnon man, and we can see survival of the fittest from there. This is where mates mated on attraction and so on.

Fact: If man evolved from a fish, or even an ape, there would be a lineage from the single celled amoebas (as an example) on up to present day man. Fact is, we don't. If man truly evolved from anything other than cro magnon man, there would be more than a single skeletal link, there would be hundreds of these proposed missing links.

The Bible states that the Lord made Adam from the dust of the Earth (Carbon-based life form) and that Eve was made from the rib of Adam, and the dust of the Earth (Carbon based life, with more ribs than the male of the species). The Lord made the world start to finish, and everything in it. Science does not, and has not ever been able to rationalize that there is no God, and will not be able to do so. Nothing is too hard for the Lord he created the Heavens and the Earth and everything in between just to show us (Humans) how special we are.

just saying...

September 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

John T Draper

Men and women have the same number of ribs. You need to stop taking biology lessons from your pastor and crack a real book once in a while.

September 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

Roxie -- Louisiana

Actually science (biogenetics) is able to trace all life back to one cell life. Every living thing on this planet is biologically connected. The evidence and facts are there and they have been peer reviewed and looked at by all those knowledgable in that field and it is held to be as true as anything can be truly a fact. Doesn't matter if you don't like it or don't wish it to be true. It is true.

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

Ykcyc

Roxie,
I am no religious. Evolution is real,but... I have questions. Assume the first life just happend to appear, it would just as easily disapear, unless it was able to replicate. Who wrote the program? It is like saying computers apeared by themselves, already programmed. Who apeared first males or females? Or both at the same time? What progammed the sperm to seek the egg or it programmed itself. I don't believe in any of the stuff religion teaches – just asking questions no one is able t answer. Peace!

September 8, 2011 at 3:11 pm |

The Guy

@ykcyc – as the great Dr. Hawking has suggested, matter can create itself from nothing thus leading to the Big Bang and the series of chain reactions that have created our universe as it stands today. You may or may not agree with his point of view, however consider that evolution does not simply reject the idea of a higher being, it just disproves specific "truths" exuded by certain religions.

for instance, dinosaurs existed hundreds of millions of years before man was what he is today. a simple, indisputable fact. the bible states there was one day between the creation of animals and man which quite obviously does not equal hundreds of millions of years. under basic scientific theory, if this is untrue, than the whole must be considered untrue. not to mention the hundreds of other proofs against biblical creationism.

September 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm |

John T Draper

Ykcyc: Those questions have been answered for over a century.

Nobody 'programmed' the sperm to seek the eggs. Evolution is a system that inolves mutation, adaptability and fitness. Here's how it works:

According to the laws of Entropy, the universe is constantly breaking down. Every now and then, this causes a mutation. An animal is born with DNA different than its parent's. Sometimes, that mutation makes that animal better suited to their environment – more 'fit' to survive. Since it survives, it may procreate, passing its mutated genes to the next generation. That creates an entire generation of more a more fit version of that species. Evolution.

Sometimes, a mutation makes an animal less fit. For example, if your sperm doesn't find its way to the egg, you will not procreate and your genes will be eliminated from the pool. The sperm doesn't 'seek' the egg; there's no intelligence in the sperm.

Class dismissed.

September 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

M-Theory

-ykcyc... First, I'd like to say that I DO believe in GOD.... ourselves. The very first life forms are difficult to explain. But scientists point to replicating molecules (versions of which are currently found in nature) that form over time into very complex molecular structures. Life forms now are astonishingly complex but at their heart they are chemical reactions. We think we have autonomy, consciousness and free will but these may just may necessary illusions to deal with a fluid and chaotic ecosystem. Without the perspective of individual autonomy, we wouldn't evolve into adapted characters.... because without a sense of individual self, we may then find the world to be cannibalistic. I believe that ultimately we are the same being (god) disguised as individuals for the purposes of surviving on earth.

September 8, 2011 at 4:37 pm |

I wasn't there

AAhhhhhh, so that's why I like ribs so much!

September 8, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

The Guy

I'm still astonished at the number of people who reference the bible as a source of scientific fact.

September 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

Sharp

Absolutely correct. The Bible & most other holy books have a lot to say about the spiritual world but fall real short about the physical world. Science is a product of the gift of reason. It was invented by the Pagan Greeks at the zenith of their civilization as a diversion for their nobility. Religion is real jealous because of the very real benefits it has given the human race. Christianity is a great absorber & integrator of other faiths & it will no doubt absorb Science into it's doctrines in due time as a practical matter.

September 9, 2011 at 8:36 am |

Dave

Yup.. My bad on the Ribs issue... I hate Biology, with a passion... But the Bible doesn't say that Eve was made to have more ribs, etc etc just that she was created from it.

Not all living things "evolved" from the single cell, again "missing-link" is missing for a reason.
and I'm not saying that ALL living things were created, just Humans.

Outside of the Rib issue I've not heard anything remotely solid as an opposing view.

September 8, 2011 at 4:01 pm |

Sharp

Search for Burgess Shale in Wikipedia. These fossils show a glimpse into the early evolution of multi cell animals.

September 9, 2011 at 8:43 am |

Katie

Genetically, there is no significant differences among races of humans, any more than there are between me and someone else of my same race. Secondly, the liger is man made. A tiger and a lion cannot mate in the wild to create one, much genetic engineering in a laboratory must be done. Third, there ARE scientific links of our lineage down to the simplest single celled creatures. Ignoring scientific evidence doesn't make it go away.

September 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

Herb (12th Apostle)

Men and women have the same number of ribs. Those extra parts on women are called "b**bs."

September 8, 2011 at 4:42 pm |

Just Kidding

Evolution is not real. God created man on the 6th day. I pray to him every day for a billion dollars, immortality, and 70 virgins. He hasn't granted me my three wishes just yet, but he definitely will eventually.

September 8, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

The Guy

Well duh. It's in a book so it must be true.

September 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

MyTake

I have never experience in my life a group that exposes and repeats more lies than the religious right. They are not satisfied with disagreeing or stating that believe in something not demonstrable or provable and accept the facts of evolution. they actively go out and lie and deceive at every turn. They have no understanding of what science is or what the facts of evolution are, but they constantly undermine both by misstating these concepts. Which is there point. By undermining facts they promote their agenda of ignorance.

September 8, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

KrashUndBurn

They're not lying. They speak from ignorance.

Note to believers – read up on our progress as a species some time. Get a subscription to a good science magazine and read it. Educate yourself. Learn what science is cumulatively learning about our world.

September 8, 2011 at 5:08 pm |

Mmmm...

Makes me wonder what kind of world we would live in if people read books (other than the same one over and over again), spent time observing the natural world around them, continued their education instead of going to a church or other religious oriented location. For every dollar spent on a religious building, I wonder what a wonderful world we would live in if that same dollar was spent on research, or more humanitarian effort. Not to say that some dollars donated to religious causes don't end up helping people, I am just saying, too few, and usually with ridiculous strings attached.

September 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

SoulMarleyLove

I agree. It sickens me to know that the truth and facts are out there and ppl still seem to ignore it all. It also upsets me that, in this day and age, we still have ppl preaching creation when it is FACT not hearsay that "It's evolution, Baybee" that formed life.

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

steve samples

Why is there something, rather than nothing? In the beginning God......

September 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

Observer

"Why is there something, rather than nothing? In the beginning God......"

Is God something or nothing? So who created God?

September 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

gerald

Everything in time and space can be shown to have a cause. God is outside of time and space and the rules are different there. The physical realm and spiritual realm have different laws. Therefore your question is invalid.

September 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

stemcell

@gerald

You need to get back on your meds ASAP and quit reading the science blogs, their distrubing you too much.

September 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

get real

Why do some feel 'God' has to have a label of some kind and an instruction book that we darst not disobey least we parish in eternal flames...really? I don't think any of us have a clue of the otherside, but I think we will all have a laugh out of how some thought it would be.

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

Logical Answers

I think you have to provide evidence for a spiritual realm, Gerald, before you go saying that there's a magical place outside of the universe where the laws of physics don't apply.

September 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

gerald

Illogical Nonanswers – I doubt you would be open to any evidence I or anyone else would provide. It's out there.

September 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

Felix

One of the major human conditions that we continue to struggle with is why we are here and who created us?? Our brain has a limit to its intelligence and we all reach the same ground when perusing these questions. After a car is finished being built on an assembly line, it has no idea who and how it was created, much like us when we are born. Unless that intelligence is granted, we are either satisfied with a theory or content with our faith. To answer your questions about who created God, my faith tells me that he was before time, (time is a condition that is only felt by something that is immortal). So if God was before time, that means he has always existed. And I am content with that.

September 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

laurie

who was and is and is to come, that's who

September 8, 2011 at 4:31 pm |

Herb (12th Apostle)

When God spoke the universe into creation, what language did he speak?

On the first day, God created light (called it "day") and darkness (called it "night").
On the third day he created plants and vegetation.
On the fourth day he created two great lights - one to govern the day (the sun) and one to govern the night (moon).

How was there day and night before the sun and moon and stars?
How did plants and vegetation and seeds grow without energy from the sun?
How is the moon a light? It reflects the light of the sun, just like earth?

We aren't even out of the first chapter yet and already we got problems?

@Animus89
Probably because compromise isn't fashoinable. And maybe because that feels like a catch-all. I would love a world where evolution can be the answer to 'how', and not the answer to 'why', even though I subscribe to evolution. But the lines have been drawn by religion that it simply cannot be.
.
Also, more to the core of why not marry the two... Time as we know it did not exists before the Big Bang. So it is physically impossible for an entity or being to create the universe where time doesn't exist. So, if we try to combine math and religion, we ultimatly find that it simply cannot be done.

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

Billy Meier

Almost everything we know about everything is wrong. We didn't come from apes. We were created by aliens. We have alien DNA. They can't find the missing link because the missing link hasn't come back to earth...yet.

September 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

Tom

How are those meds workin' for ya?

September 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

Roxie -- Louisiana

LMAO That was truly hilarious!

September 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

Tom C

All hail XENU!!!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 5:15 pm |

Tom Leykis

The earth is approximately 4.5 BILLION Years old. Dinosaurs existed, just not with men. The whole "jesus" and "god" thing? A total myth. Evolution is a scientific theory and verifiable fact.

September 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

Karla Girl

Again, God says that man is without excuse, all we need to do is look around and see what He has created. There is noooooooooo way in our little feeble minds that we can comprehend how we were created. So please stop wasting our time with ridiculous theories.

September 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

MyTake

On the contrary, perhaps there is no way *you* can conceive of the facts of Evolution. Maybe you should stop commenting on science discoveries if it makes your robot brain hurt so much

September 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

Nah

TROLL ALERT.

September 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

Angi

Huh. You are okay with saying you are too stupid to comprehend something that science lays out real clear-like? The evolutionary process is being observed AS IT OCCURS today. It isn't hard to understand. My 8 year old gets it. If you wish to have faith that God was/is behind evolution, there's nothing wrong with that. But denying that it exists and using the excuse that "we are too stupid to understand how creation happened" is about the most pathetic, head-in-sand approach I have ever seen.

September 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

Tom Leykis

Does the phrase "Too dumb for words" mean anything to you? LOL

September 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

dtchemist

i love how uneducated (especially in science) people claim "no way our FEEBLE minds can comprehend GOD".... no, YOUR feeble mind doesn't try, and likely can't comprehend relatively simple, every day truths. Try asking your pastor one day just what it is that makes your mind so feeble. If it takes him more than 5 seconds to answer, get the fuck out of there and head to B&N

September 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm |

happyfeet

100% Agreed. In addition, the Bible was written by man, and religion is a concept man has developed. God did not write the Bible or the any other "religious" text. The stories are quite nice, and Moses is my favorite, but they are based off stories told through the generations. The Bible was not written as the events occurred.....they were written a long time afterwards (if you don't believe me, go to college and take a religious studies course – a professor of religion knows more than you or your priest). It's ok to follow religion, but it's not wise to take every word at face value. Believe in what you want to, but please do not antagonize science for finding proof of other alternatives. Man did not create the stratigraphic record or the fossils in them.
I do not blame people for having faith in something, but instead of having these pulse pounding and ugly arguments, why not investigate? Read something from the other perspective and gain and understanding of it before you make your claim. It will make your arguments more sound.

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

ANUS

THEORY IS NOT FACT.

September 8, 2011 at 4:54 pm |

Iconoclast

Neither is the mythology outlined in the bible. What is a fact is that an ANUS is an A$$hole.

September 9, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

bio

Ok. I have a degree in Biology and most of my elective courses focused on evolution, population biology, and evolution as a cause of human medical issues. But I am not a research scientist or in any way being paid to support one view over another.

1) Evolution is a very real process- one that has been observed in the field and replicated in a lab, and provides many real explanations that extend into every field of biology.

2) "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" Chimps, gorillas, etc. are not 'less evolved' humans. They have been evolving for the same amount of time. Humans come from populations of apes that had to come out of trees and adapt to living in plains, where advanced social behavior and standing upright were highly advantageous . Chimps and gorillas continued to adapt and evolve, but their habitat was different than ours, so they are too. The theory of evolution only states that humans and chimps have a common ancestor (that was neither a human, nor a chimp) if you go back in time long enough (hundreds of thousands of years)

3) some of you are asking about what the 'next steps' in human evolution might be. For most of human evolution, food was scarce. Adaptations that cause us to crave foods high in calorie/fat/sugar and to store fat away were a big advantage to our survival, and became prevalent. Now that we have an abundance in the developed world, you see childhood obesity skyrocketing. Theoretically, children of those most susceptible to obesity and heart disease will be less represented in future generations.

A final thought for the theists- science and evolution do clash with the idea of 'god', or a creator, or some higher power. Science doesn't acknowledge one, because there is not sufficient evidence. But science gives us insight into the true nature of the world, and if you believe in god, it brings us closer to 'His' truth. Science and evolution also do not clash with the moral teachings of Jesus. However, I admit it clashes with the historical and scientific explanations in the Bible, because there was no modern science or formal history in the Bronze Age. It's up to you to decide what's important.

September 8, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

Aaron

Thank you for giving such a great explanation of evolution!

September 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm |

Karla Girl

Over the years, God has proven himself by nature, and still there is a question? He says in His word, that man is without excuse, all we have to do is look around and see what He has created. As amazing as even one cell is, how we can question that we came from primordial ooze? I didn't come from ooze.

September 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

Empirical

You did not. You came from your mother, and she from hers. All they way back to first signs of life. You mentioned looking around at this wonderful world. Great idea. Scientists have been doing that for years. Get up out of your chair and go look with them. Read what the discovered looking at Gods creation and join in with them.

September 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

Boltman

You did come from your father's ooze....

September 8, 2011 at 3:32 pm |

Nah

bio: "A final thought for the theists- science and evolution do clash with the idea of 'god', or a creator, or some higher power. Science doesn't acknowledge one, because there is not sufficient evidence."

Science doesn't acknowledge one because science, for the most part, deals purely with physical processes and how "things" interact. Science is generally not concerned with metaphysics or first orders of things. Those are left to the realm of logic and philosophy.

"But science gives us insight into the true nature of the world, and if you believe in god, it brings us closer to 'His' truth."

Exactly right.

September 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

Bob

Where has an evolutionary transition of the magnitude of between the most-recent proposed human ancestor and humans been observed in the field or replicated in the lab?

September 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

Tim

Bob, Why are you commenting on these things. From your posts it is clear you have no scientific background at all. If you want answers to the type of questions you just posted go look for them. Human evolutionary change is well documented. Just look at changes in Human height dating back to as recently as the 1700s. Read about human genetics and congenital diseases. There is no black box, the evidence for why science believes what it believes is right in your local library.

September 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

onewarmline

Bob, do you have a dog? Let's suppose you have a nice toy poodle. That dog is genetically a wolf, and has evolved in just 10's of thousands of years from gray wolves (with which it could still mate, if it didn't get eaten first). This evolution was accomplished through *artificial selection* - successive generations were selected and bred for certain traits by humans. Same thing with cows, horses, cats, and so on. Darwin simply proposed that evolution could also occur through *natural selection* - with forces in nature deciding which individuals in a generation had the right characteristics to survive and reproduce. If you accept that farmers and dog fanciers can shape new breeds, why on earth is it so difficult for people to accept that something similar can occur in the wild. (shakes head)

September 8, 2011 at 2:56 pm |

red

well actually there are thousands of genetic studies that show exactly that if you'd bother to take the time to learn about them. there are also hundreds of fossils out there from the last 4-5 million years or so that demonstrate transitional characteristics between our ape-like ancestors and us if you'd bother to actually read the published articles and books describing them. But you won't because that would mean actually using your brain for something other than parroting back misinformation spouted by people who have a vested political/religious/financial interest in keeping people ignorant.

September 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

XO

We are so egotistical.. We evolved from apes, chimps and gorillas.

September 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

XO

Err, apes, chimps and gorillas evolved from us. 😉

September 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

Anthropologist

XO,

First of all, chimpanzees, gorillas, and humans are all members of ape family.
Second, we are not descended from chimpanzees and gorillas. Chimpanzees, apes, and humans all descended from a common ancestor millions of years ago.

September 8, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

Ike

What you failed to point out is that "micro-evolution" or small changes within a species has been observed in a labratory and even in real life, but "micro-evolution" changes from one species to another has never been observed or proven. Ironically the most noticable mutation within the human species are negative effects, meaning they don't make the species better. Six toes actually impede walking. There is a question of whther we are getting more intelligent when we can't even figure out how the ancient peopl were able to move the massive stones from miles away without machinery. Go figure.

September 8, 2011 at 2:39 pm |

MyTake

there is not such thing as "micro-evolution" - this is an invention of the religious right. Biologist do not make a distinction.

September 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

MyTake

*no

September 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm |

MyTake

You state a strawman argument. Evolution change are noted from time to time. There is no micro-evolution. It is a complete lie to say Evolution into new specifies would result in a "negative" effect. You know nothing about Evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

kso

except for viruses evolve every frikkin year! Blind as a frikkin bat and absolutely clueless.

September 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

bio

what you're talking about is called 'speciation' and it is nearly impossible to replicate in a lab because of the amount of time and complexity it takes to occur.

However, it's been observed indirectly, and what basically needs to happen is that enough differences need to arise between two separated populations to prevent them from attempting to mate, or to be capable of successful mating.

Snapping Shrimp on both sides of Central America is the classic example, and analysis of their DNA gave science a lot of clues into speciation. What is now the Gulf of Mexico was connected to the Pacific for a long time, before Central America separated the two, and there's been enough time for speciation to occur in a lot of the sea life on both sides of Central America.

September 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

LeeCMH

Regarding next steps in Evolution, I submit human evolution is giving way to technological evolution. Increasingly, humans are able to "intelligently design" alternative human engineering. Our genetics is now in our hands! Perhaps we will become Borg as we assimilate and assimilate. Cell phones and texting is early evidence of the "hive mind."

September 8, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

Alfred Einsteen

Oh really? Tell me, oh academic one. How is that non-living matter evolves into a living organism? Hmmm. What's that? Cat got your tongue? Or better yet, what did flowering fauna orginate from? Why haven't we seen any of those fossils? Why did they just suddenly appear as if from thin air? Quick....off to Google!

September 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

bio

you raise good questions, ones that a lot of people are working towards finding answers to.

The fossil record would probably show more about the evolution of flowering plants if they didn't decompose so quickly and easily, especially in the warm, tropical environment they evolved in. But most of the elements of flowers are just modified and specialized leaves, and it's known that flowering plants came from non-flowering plants.

And again, science doesn't strictly disagree with 'creationism', but the question of how life arose 4 billion years ago is a difficult one for science. There are a number of theories... there's the idea that a meteor brought life to earth (which I think isn't the case), the idea that amino acids were created by natural processes and were able to somehow organize into a self-replicating molecule of some kind (possible, some experiments support this theory), and another that states that membranes (essentially soapy bubbles) were created somewhere, and provided some protection or compartmentalization where the early processes that lead to live could evolve over many, many 'generations'. If only there were fossils or time machines we could know more.

man those questions are hard! let's get mad at science for not being able to answer them yet! i mean, why can't people be content with the fact that we are all magical sky children crafted out of the image of a bronze age god of war who created the earth 6,000 years ago. how are there still atheists?? 🙂

September 8, 2011 at 3:14 pm |

bio

cat got your tongue?

September 8, 2011 at 5:49 pm |

Eyedoc

Alfred, and I hope your namesake would agree,...The proper scientific answer to those specific question and a whole lot of other specific questions like them is...

We do not know.

This is science, in a nutshell. The questions are easy to ask, answers require rigorous and detail examination of the facts let to us by the world around us...Fossil certainly, basic laws of the universe, genetics, details of flower blossoms and the differences between each flowering plant...
Science endevours to take all we can observe about a thing; plant, animal, rock, gas, etc.; and see how they relate to the big questions as you ask and, perhaps, more importantly, the very smallest questions about our world. Conclusions thus made must be testable and repeatable by other people using the same or different methods and when many such methods and tests agree then we say something is a theory of science. Which is then tested some more, in fact most scientist would say, should be tested at every opportunity
Religion deals with questions science does not deal with... why are you here on this earth, what is a moral and rightous life, etc. These questions are universal to man on this earth and all religions try to deal with them and show what a moral, good person is. Philosophy is the over arching word that covers all such questions and ways to think about them.
This is completely different from what science does and many scienitists make such a seperation in their own minds.

Perhaps this thought is relevant. Galileo was tried and imprisoned for writing a book in which he had two fictitous people argue about whether the Earth revolved around the sun or not. One, pro, was a gentleman scholor who was written in a cultured and learned voice; the other, against, was a lay clergyman who was written as, well, a buffoon.
The Pope, a good friend of Galileo, thought this was an attack against him personally as well as the church, hence his trial.
The legend is that Galileo signed a statement recanting all his works that previously said Earth goes around the Sun... but as he was led away he whispered, " Oh, but it does. It does."

September 8, 2011 at 6:51 pm |

TheWiz71

Man, it's like whack-a-mole. Science and religion are two completely different areas of human thought, belief, and endeavor, with different reasons for being, and different objectives. Science does not go into investigations of God because that is not the purpose of science. The purpose of science is to explain the origins and workings of the universe at all its levels. Religion does not explain the mechanical origins of the universe or the anthropological origins of humans, because that is not its purpose. Stop creating a false conflict!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 3:04 pm |

Oreste Ona

You say: The theory of evolution only states that humans and chimps have a common ancestor. The same thing has been said for wolves and dogs. BUT: they mus have been engaged in sex to evolve. And with all the advances with the ADN: that we are 99.9 similar to apes, noway humans can procreate. And that same percentage is supposed to be proof of parenthood among human beings! How come?

And my question is: where are our relatives that nowadays are on their way, evolving. None exists, or shouldn't be quite a few among uns? Or does evolution just show up every x millions of years? Thanks.

September 8, 2011 at 3:06 pm |

stemcell

What??

September 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm |

bio

as for wolves and dogs, it's a classic example of domestication. Evolution only claims that there is a common ancestor (which was not a modern wolf, or modern dog); we've separated the domesticated population from the wild population for so long, and changed it so much, that they're different now. Almost the exact same thing happened with corn.

As for your question about humans, it's complicated and not entirely known. First, consider that evolving into humans is not the 'goal' of all ape evolution. But you're correct to observe that humans are very distinct from other primates and genetically isolated. The theory is that the eruption of Mt. Toba caused a 'bottleneck' effect, and the human species was reduced to such small numbers that we are all of very very similar ancestry (this is still up for debate, but really interesting stuff, google mt. toba). There's also evidence that we waged war on, and largely eradicated, the Neanderthals, which would have been close relatives.

September 8, 2011 at 3:55 pm |

SoulMarleyLove

Yes, thank you very much bio. That was well said. I am glad that you did leave in some questions for the believers of "creation" tho. I, too, believe,studied and learned abt evolution and don't see how someone can totally disregard facts. Not hearsay, facts! of how our universe has came to be. Thank you again! I loved reading your response.

September 8, 2011 at 3:45 pm |

Animus89

"But science gives us insight into the true nature of the world, and if you believe in god, it brings us closer to 'His' truth."

Exactly. Thank you. They do not HAVE to oppose entirely.

September 8, 2011 at 5:50 pm |

Jd

can somebody explain this? We evolved from primates and there are thousands of variational species between primates and us that should have been more evolved and better suited for survival than primates. Why aren't they alive and among us? Primates and humans are still in existence and per natural selection the missing links should have survived but did not. Please clue me in....

September 8, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

Have you heard of Google?

September 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

Jd

We are exchanging ideas here. Is that you contribution?

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

earth2loons

you will never find a straight forward answer on a question like that using google. And that is because scientists avoid these types of questions. It doesn't fit their paradigm. And the answers are uncomfortable for them.

September 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

My contribution is encouraging you to learn something for yourself, while earth looney is telling you not to even bother. It's not the scientists fault that you don't understand the answer.

September 8, 2011 at 3:33 pm |

Nah

jd: "Why aren't they alive and among us? Primates and humans are still in existence and per natural selection the missing links should have survived but did not. Please clue me in...."

You're treating the "missing links" as if they were separate categories of things. Theoretically, modern animals and humans are the products of those missing links. Hence, the missing links "became" human, and so are no longer in existence.

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

Jd

I can go to the zoo and see a primate but no where on earth can i see a living and breathing species thats between primates and humans. Natural selection dictates that that these species should have survived. Why are primates still in existence ....they should be a fossil in the ground and only a "mile marker" the evolution highway. Just one of these species should have survived...there ancestors (primates) did...

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

GeekNip

Why are none of these primate species around? We killed them all, what do you think? Humans won't tolerate individuals with slightly darker skin even now in the 21st century when we all should really know better. Do you really think homo sapiens would let other primates live near them and eat their food? We ate all the food, we starved them out, and the ones that were left were exterminated.

September 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm |

MyTake

"... that should have been more evolved and better suited for survival than primates." - You make an assumption here.Wwhere is your evidence for this?

September 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

Angi

JD – you should know that humans ARE primates, and apes are Hominidae. In fact, it isn't until you get all the way down to the scientific division of "subtribe" that humans and apes diverge. For reference, that is about the same place tigers and cougars diverge.
Logic would tell us the reason we do not see those you are concerned with is the same reason we do not see sabre-toothed cats.

September 8, 2011 at 3:13 pm |

Jd

angi-we don't see saber tooth tigers because of the ice age. Not evolutionary processes. Btw, the large cats that you cite are both still in existence, correct? Are intentionally missing my point that challenges your viewpoint?

September 8, 2011 at 3:31 pm |

Guest

Jd- To start, pumas and tigers live on different continents, so the species haven't ever really competed. Even if they have once lived in the same area, any problems have probably been settled. But the habitat of say bobcat and pumas overlap, how come bobcats, the much smaller of the two, haven't all been killed by pumas? Because their diets are different, pumas hunting down big prey like deer, and bobcats enjoying rabbits and mice. There really is very little conflict if prey is not a problem.
Now big cats can also live together, like jaguars and pumas in mexico, for many reasons like abundance of prey or other circumstances. However, there will always be competition between species.

I believe YOU have missed the point. Both humans and apes are primates. They are as close as tigers and cougars are to eachother. Each kind of ape (gorilla, chimpanzee) IS what you are asking after. The most recent human-like primate to pass was the Neandertal, approx 20,000 yrs ago. A lot of people would say they were kind of bewtween the two. They DID coexist with modern humans and apes, until environment, competition and breeding killed them off – ice age and competition being the most prevalent theories ... kind of like sabre-tooth cats ....

September 8, 2011 at 5:45 pm |

Malcolm

Natural selection does not imply that "missing links" should have survived. Natural _selection_ implies that advantageous variations are selected for. Those without the advantageous variation can't compete and die out, implying exactly the opposite of Jd's assertion.

The more reasonable but still specious opposite argument is "if natural selection is part of the evolution of species, then why aren't we the only primate with all of the others dying out?" That argument, of course, misses the point that advantageous variations can be advantageous for some environments and not for others. So one variation can take advantage of one ecological niche while another variation thrives in another. Eventually they may evolve into completely separate species.

September 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm |

Jd

Malcolm- natural selection states in so many words that the strong pass there genes which helped them survive to their offspring. This genetic process helps the offspring survive right

September 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

Malcolm

Jd: This genetic process helps the offspring survive right

Yes, those with advantageous variations survive, but the "selection" part is that most often they survive at the expense of those that don't have this advantageous variation. Those others that are the now the previous step in the evolutionary process don't survive. They are replaced by the new because of the variation. Those now extinct variants are the "missing links" that link us backward to the common ancestor between us and apes, or between us and say spiders for that matter.

The common ancestor generated an eventually-to-become-ape variant and an eventually-to-become-human variant (and likely many other variants). Those variants were both able to survive because of their different advantages, and at some point (possibly quickly and possibly not), the common ancestor was unable to compete with its variants (or their variants) and became extinct.

September 8, 2011 at 5:01 pm |

Russ

Others, especially Malcolm, have explained natural selection quite well. What they haven't addressed is what I believe to be the fundamental reason this is tripping you up.

Many people believe evolution boils down to "humans evolved from monkeys." In this model we evolved from and beyond other ape like species on earth. If we evolved from chimpanzees there should be missing links, right?

I believe this cuts to the heart of what you're asking. The problem is that it's based off a fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary tree. The truth is that we did not evolve from any species you see today, we merely share a common ancestor. You're correct that, were we to have evolved from a chimp there should be missing links but the truth is these fossils they're finding ARE the "missing" links. The fact that they don't lead back to chimps is not a surprise but rather exactly what the theory of evolution would predict. These fossils lead back to a common ancestor with other modern ape like creatures that you would say look no more like them than they do us.

I would like to make a slight correction to something I've stated above. I mentioned an evolutionary tree. That's not entirely correct. Stating such a thing makes the concept easy to understand but the truth is a bit muddier. The labels we use to define species are entirely man made. It's a continuous flow of change over time that, in hindsight, we're able to assign discrete labels to. There was never a moment when one species gave birth to wholly different species yet we can look look back and label periods when we consider these changes to have occurred.

To think of it another way you merely have to look at dog breeding. It's well known, even among the strongest creationists that we have bred into existence all breeds of dogs through man made selection. (same as natural selection but not random) When does a new breed of dog emerge that we can give a new label to? The answer to this shows you how we come up with these discrete labels for the "missing links".

September 9, 2011 at 9:12 am |

billl

How does Rick Perry plan to hide this?

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

Lancelot Link

Rick Perry is a fine example of Australopithecus Robustus

September 8, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

Cyrus

Actually Perry is a specimen of the Homo Stupidus Texagensis.

September 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

Ike

The real question is: How is the scientific community going to hide this, when other conflicting scientific data or other experts emerges as it always does? The answer: The truth gets placed on the last page by the scientific community who are opposed to even thier own scientist disagreeing with them.

September 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm |

MyTake

You are very ignorant on how the scientific community works. As well as science itself, logic and I am guessing common sense.

September 8, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

LeeCMH

Rick Perry is just a hateful Christian.

September 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

Animus89

After sitting here and reading through the plethora of comments with as an unbiased and open mind-set as possible, only one question prevails in my mind:

Why can't science be considered evidence of intelligent design?

I am aware there exists those who believe exactly that, but of all the things I have read, heard, and seen from both sides of the argument it seems most purely logical that the most correct answer would be a marry of the two. So that science proves in mathematics the work of intelligent design and the notion of said intelligent design enforces these finds and provides fill for areas that science has yet to answer. Similar to the views of Vetra from Da Vinci code (who is of course fictional, but represents a fairly balanced marry of the two opposing views as a religiously rooted man of science).

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

Nah

animus: "After sitting here and reading through the plethora of comments with as an unbiased and open mind-set as possible, only one question prevails in my mind: ... Why can't science be considered evidence of intelligent design?"

Because of narrow minded, dogmatic beliefs held on both sides. Whether it's with militant atheists, or fundamentalists.

Many religious people seem to forget that it was Lemaittre (a Bishop) who essentially proved the Big Bang, and forget that evolution has no bearing on the existence of a god because the two are not mutually exclusive.

September 8, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

Nah

Correction: ...and atheists forget that evolution, etc.

September 8, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

What are you trying to say? If they're NOT mutually exclusive, then they have commonalities. Maybe you were trying to say that atheists forget that evolution has nothing to do with god, but what atheist doesn't know that? Get a grip, man.

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

Nah

what: "If they're NOT mutually exclusive, then they have commonalities. Maybe you were trying to say that atheists forget that evolution has nothing to do with god, but what atheist doesn't know that? Get a grip, man."

1) Things need no commonalities, beyond existence, to be non-contradictory. It's sufficient that the existence of one doesn't disprove or conflict with the other.

2) I said explicitly that atheists forget that evolution has nothing to do with a god because of No. 1.

Thanks for playing.

September 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

Because it's not necessary to invoke ID to explain anything. Why would you add baggage to the scientific explanation by assuming ID? It works for you because you're a religious delusionist, the only type of person who would make such a ridiculous notion. For a normal, reasonable person, it's not required.

September 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

Bob

When we see things in the natural world that look like they were created by intelligence, somehow it's delusional to assume that they actually were. But it's not delusional to assume that a random sequence of events (that we do not know did happen or even could happen) produced the same result.

September 8, 2011 at 2:40 pm |

Nah

what: "Because it's not necessary to invoke ID to explain anything."

It's cute that make assertions without proving them.

It's required to explain the origin of the universe insofar as the universe needs a first cause. Why? Because all material things require a cause, and an infinite regression of causes is illogical (and impossible). Hence, there must have been a first cause and that thing must, by necessity, be the cause of itself and everything after it.

Glad I could disabuse you of your unsupported, dogmatic opinions.

September 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

badlobbyist

And my 2 cents...
You are right. Science does not exclude the possibility of a god. It looks really, really, unlikely, but can't be totally out of the question. I think most Atheists would agree too. The existence of a God cannot be ruled out. Just really unlikely.

Let's say we do believe in intelligent design. One of the problems then is which God of all of Gods being worshipped on earth now (and in the past for that matter) should we believe? Why would anyone be so arrogant to say that they KNOW their God is the Truth with a capital T. That they know the earth was created 6000 years ago because some book says so?

Tangent – Remember, almost every army that has ever fought had God on their side. Even the Nazis. If there is a God, he/she/it is nothing like what any of our religions think.

September 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm |

Bob

What is one fact that makes the existence of God look really, really, unlikely?

September 8, 2011 at 3:00 pm |

elle

Im agnostic. there is no way to disprove god's existence or even to quantify it as likely or unlikely. However, we can tell from studies of culture that religious books are likely to be made up-made up in order to create social order and psychological peace. We can also tell that evolution occurs, and is a fact, even if you don't believe that it "applies" to humans. You don't have to accept all theories of science in order to look at them critically and see that they can be proven-even if they threaten you and your worldview.
The inability of most religious people to think critically and to deny facts that they just don't "like the sound of" is a shame.

September 8, 2011 at 3:39 pm |

dtchemist

@Bob – Innumerable facts point to an unlikely God, we can't see, hear, feel, taste, touch, or talk to him. We see no heaven when we look out into space, we can quite fully and elegantly explain the process of species creation through natural salection, We have quite a nice model of how the universe began, and God plays no role. No miracle has ever been confirmed that couldn't just as likely have been caused by chance (no amputated limbs have ever regrown). And the only book that cites your God, the bible, is incomplete, written by over 40 authors about a man (jesus) whom they never met.

The fact that we have a very nice explanation of the genetic mechanism for how bodies reproduce, develop, and mutate along with the genetic fact that we share ~98% of our DNA with chimpanzees is a very good indicator that we share a common ancestor with chimps. You can make such a comparison with any two animals alive, and it has been done for many, and guess what? Just as you would expect if evolution were true, the more dissimilar two species, like human and rabbit, or human and worms, the less genetic material they have in common.

If you walked into a room, saw someone lying on the floor with a bullet hole in their head, blood freshly pouring out, indicating a recent wound, and another person standing at their feet, holding a gun with arm still fully extended in the direction of the person on the ground, barrel smoking, there would be little doubt in your mind as to what happened. The fact that you don't see science in general as a tool for investigation, or evolution as unambiguous as the aforementioned scenario, then you simply haven't had any decent schooling in how science works.

September 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

Empirical

In ID's best most mathematical forms, you MIGHT be able to claim that all the scientific theory supports its claims if were not for a few things. First, like string theory it cannot predict anything new, therefore is quite ineffectual. Unlike string theory, it does not have its own strong mathematical basis offering incite into the universes' functionality. And most importantly, it is very flawed in its assumption that the entropy is decreasing in order to make evolution work. Earth is not a closed system. The sun is supply the energy for this evolutionary process. The sun disappears, the system closes and life discontinues.

September 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

Carla

Science and religion view (and describe) the universe (world) from different perspectives. What you suggest is like marrying humans with angels. Illogical.

September 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

The Guy

It doesn't necessarily contradict intelligent design, it just contradicts the biblical intelligent design. There are specific dates and events associated with genesis and those can not be true as proven by human evolution.

Intelligent design as proposed by some deists suggest that both ID and human evolution can exist together.

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

MyTake

Science is a process. Belief in a creator is just that ... belief.

September 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

Tim

1) Physics Explains More.

The problem with intelligent design is that it ignores physics. Combining intelligent design with evolution makes as much sense as saying that intelligence controls gravity. Most people would agree that gravity is simply a part of nature, operating solely under the laws of physics. Yet, evolution operates just as solely and as equally by the laws of physics as gravity. Therefore, there is no need to assume some form of intelligence is behind gravity–or even evolution, for that matter, since the world moves entirely on its own based simply on the physical laws of the universe.

2) ID does not equal Science

Another problem with this combination is that intelligent design would stifle scientific reasoning and critical thinking. Most proponents of intelligent design believe just the opposite–that ID is a form of critical thinking. But to stop short of investigating natural phenomena by simply concluding that "God" or some other "intelligent" being controls everything does a huge disservice to science. Unless the intelligent being could be identified, measured, studied, and still fall within the fundamental framework of physics and the many other sciences in which evolution is explained (i.e., astronomy, geology, genetics, microbiology, zoology, botany, chemistry, and the list goes on), then science would be, per its own definition, unconcerned. It is not a matter of excluding "God" or some other "intelligent being(s)" from the study, but rather observing what can be empirically tested. Science is not concerned with intuition, gut feelings, or mysticism. Scientists can no more prove intelligence controls evolution than you can prove magical, invisible leprechauns are dancing around people's living rooms.

3) ID part of Culture

And finally, intelligent design is concerned less with actual science, and more with making a theological argument concerning the existence of God or gods or some other "intelligent" being or beings. It is culturally rooted, thus the interpretation of said "beings" would vary from culture to culture. Without the ability to study, measure, and observe the intelligence, any so-called "facts" would be pointless and useless in any discussion and would get nowhere in the worldwide scientific community. At best, ID is suited for an interesting philosophy or religious studies class.

September 8, 2011 at 3:36 pm |

InTheLikeness

I agree, in most part, with Nah and badlobbyist. Your right, it isn't impossible for the two points of view to be combined and in some cases, individuals will speak just so.

However, for previously pointed out reasons, for example: dogmatic views of both parties and contridicting ideals of who or what "God" is and stands for, it is very unlikely that the general population would recognized that one does not exclusively cut out the existence of the other.

Were it possible to find a compromise of ID and science (without writing on novel on here to explain why, I do think it is possible if the right mind-set were to be logically applied where ID and science were applied in a complimenting manner, instead of one where they compete for dominance in the theory), then it still wouldn't stop the use of "my God" and "I am right" due to human nature. A clear example of this would be the pattern of comments on this message board alone. Not to say that they are all executed in a "I am right, you are wrong" manner, but they are clearly opposing and unrelenting in said opposition. You may never get all of humanity to agree on one thing in the way a marry of ID and science would hope.

September 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

LeeCMH

If you believe in evolution, then you don't believe in Jesus Christ as your personal lord and savior.

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

aaron

No i don't.

September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

ryan

Go to wikipedia and look up what a scientific theory is. Theories and laws are talking about two different thing. The idea that evolution is "just a theory" is probably the biggest misconception about evolution. Have you ever heard of germ theory of disease, or atomic theory, or heliocentric theory?( the idea that the earth revolves around the sun) Do you really think science isn't sure about these things? Theories have tens of thousand of fact in them. There's no one fact about any of these theories. Please go look up what a law and a theory is please. There different things..

September 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

EricM

How so? These two items are not necessarily mutually exclusive or at odds with each other. It is the people who believe in each of these that are making them into something that is opposed to the other.

I didn't mention, I do not believe in the Christian Jesus story or any other purely religious concept.

September 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

AmazedinFL

I'm pretty sure that Darwin was a practicing Christian as well.

September 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

PJ

If you believe in gravity than you don't accept Superman as your personal lord and savior!

Honestly, the lack of critical thinking here is baffling and scary. If only people cared more about the people of Earth than who they believe created it. No human progress has ever been achieved by backwards anti-science thinking. Religion is simply failed science, it is an ancient attempt to explain the universe. How is it that such a large population of grown educated adults believe in invisible gods?

September 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

rapierpoint

I would ask what human progress has been achieved through the science and study of evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 3:50 pm |

Meisha

Science is actual proof. The only "proof" we have from Jesus Christ and God is in story books. Just like trolls, and mermaids, bigfoot, etc. There is no real proof there is there guy. I think not.

September 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

EricM

Not true, there are non-Christian historical document which mention the existence of Jesus.

September 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

The Guy

@EricM is correct, however these same non-christian texts have proven the books of Matthew and Luke are embellishments, at best, of Jesus.

September 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

LeeCMH

Most particularly, the main tenet of Christianity - the RESURRECTION of Jesus or any other human being and that his death saves people not yet born - is NOT proven.

September 8, 2011 at 2:45 pm |

KrashUndBurn

EricB isn't necessarily right. There is one non-Christian document I'm aware of which alludes to Christ, but even that one is subject to intensive scholarly debate at the moment. Other than that, there is NO independent literature which corroborates his existence.

September 8, 2011 at 5:25 pm |

Michael

I believe in God and I believe in evolution. The problem is with the English language. We use the same word ("believe") to refer to two very different things. The word can be used to refer to trusting in a rational, scientific, structured proof based on objective evidence, and it can also be used to refer to trusting in the provenance of a deep-seated personal, spiritual feeling that cannot be evaluated based on scientific criteria. If and when we get past that, I feel people will come to realize that science and religion are not mutually exclusive.

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

MyTake

Correction: You accept the facts of Evolution and believe in God.

September 8, 2011 at 2:59 pm |

LeeCMH

With reference to belief in God. Do you subscribe to a particular belief system, e.g. Christian, Muslim? Do you agree with the religionists starting wars, using government to stomp people or generally spreading hatred in your God's name?

September 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

The Guy

Thank you, Captain Obvious.

September 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

Ricky

I don't think your argument is a good one if you are trying to defend your religion. These skeletons can be seen, touched, and studied. Do you have a hand written letter from god or something? An angel's wing feather maybe?

September 8, 2011 at 2:46 pm |

Tom

Do you have a significant other or children? if so you probably and hopefully love them. Prove the "fact" that love exists...

September 8, 2011 at 4:59 pm |

Andrew

Religious people are children who grew to and still believe in fairy tales.

September 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm |

TheWiz71

Just stop it. I believe in Jesus Christ, the only Son of the Father, who is the Savior of the World. I also believe that the universe came into being billions of years ago, and that humans evolved over time from an early ancestor that we share with other primates. Hope your trolling. Otherwise, please, use the brain God gave you.

September 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

elle

That's a but of Hubris there. Only Jesus can say if someone isn't a decent follower because of their scientific beliefs. let he who has not sinned cast the first stone. The selfishness, preachiness and ignorance of Christians in America is what makes some people hate them so much. Put your own house in order

September 8, 2011 at 3:41 pm |

red

I most certainly believe in evolution and I do believe in Jesus Christ as my personal lord and savior. The teachings of Jesus Christ are concerned with tolerance and goodwill toward your fellow man. At no point anywhere in his teachings is there anything about evolution. His ministry was not about how we biologically got to where we are on this Earth (or how long or in what way we reached this point), it was about how we should behave ethically while we are here and what comes after we leave this Earth. Evolution describes how we attained our present form (and all the other living organisms on this Earth attained their present forms) from the earliest forms of life several billion years ago.

September 8, 2011 at 3:43 pm |

Traci

That's the most intelligent comment I have read here- kudos

September 8, 2011 at 4:55 pm |

Awillis

Why is everyone under the assumption that the existence of a God and evolution are mutually exclusive?

September 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

LeeCMH

When you refer to a God, can you elaborate what specific human religion you referring?

September 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

Because they are, it's not an assumption. You just see it incorrectly, I presume.

September 8, 2011 at 2:38 pm |

The Guy

Because unless I missed something, one day does not equal 500,000 years.

September 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

EricM

why couldn't it? Many time the bible uses parable stories to make points. If the 7 days are suppose to be 7 literal day can you explain to me when did the 7th day end?

September 8, 2011 at 2:47 pm |

red

well actually it physically could. we defined a day as the time it takes a planet, Earth in this case, to revolve once on its axis. a day on another planet is not the same length as it is on Earth because they revolve around their axises at different speeds than Earth does. Same for a year. We defined it as the time it takes for the earth to make one circuit around the Sun. If you bother to check you will find that a Martian year or a year on Neptune is much longer than a year on Earth. The amount of time encompassed by the term 'day' or 'year' is arbitrary and is what it is for convenience. It's entirely possible that there is a planet out there that takes the equivalent of 500,000 trips of Earth around the Sun to turn once on its axis.

September 8, 2011 at 3:57 pm |

Tonelok

@peick
Tracking mutations in our DNA can allow scientists to follow our DNA to find common ancestors. Through this process, we have tracked that all human DNA decended from a common 'link' that originated in africa.
.
And as for the 'why we search' question. We are a curious species, how can we stand on verge of discovery and not act?

September 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

MrHanson

"When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor."
Richard Lewontin – Harvard Zoologist

September 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

Observer

That's the opinion of one zoologist, not a paleontologist who is an expert in the area.

September 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

Not yet we can't, but we will one day. Lewontin has been a critic of traditional approaches to ADAPTATION, mostly. He worked with Stephen Jay Gould, for crying out loud, he believes in evolution. It's just the specific details he has issues with, which is his job as a scientist.

September 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

KrashUndBurn

"""Richard Lewontin – Harvard Zoologist"""

He's an evolutionary biologist. He does not agree with you. Did you lift that quote from a Christian website which gives you quotes to use out of context to argue for creationism?

Note to believers – that there are debates and arguments within the scientific community regarding evolution does not mean scientists question the validity of the theory – they DON'T. Not at all. The arguments are mainly over their ideas of the mechanisms at work.

September 8, 2011 at 5:44 pm |

ray

“Have those who disbelieved not considered that the heavens and the earth were a joined entity, then We separated them, and made from water every living thing? Then will they not believe?” (Quran 21:30)

RESEARCH QURAN AND SCIENCE AND YOU WILL FIND SOME INTERESTING THINGS IN THE QURAN SUCH AS THE BIG BANG, EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE AND WHEN THE UNIVERSE WAS ONLY A GAS STATE ETC ETC

September 8, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

earth2loons

I have researched the Quran. And any claims that it comports with modern science are spurious and superficial.

September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

MyTake

Salt water and fresh water *do* mix ... contrary to the Quran

September 8, 2011 at 3:01 pm |

Jimbo

Once I was told by Mormon missionaries that dinosaur bones and evidence of evolution were put here by God to make us question our faith.

September 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

EricM

you should ask them for their thoughts on caffeine....

September 8, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

Mosihasteen

Its ok to drink caffeinated drinks – 1) assuming they are cold and 2) nobody else in your ward – the Mormon equivalent of a parish – is watching!

September 11, 2011 at 11:33 am |

Ike

"And it came to pass..." that Mormons only believe what thier "prophets" tell them.

"And it came to pass..." the Book of Mormon is incredibly inaccurate in its history and is based on other peoples writings that were current at the time of the Civil War. The Bible at least has historical and archaelogical accuracies behind it.

"And it came to pass..." the Book of Mormon is supposed to be the latter revelation of Christ in America and yet totally contradicts the Bible, except where Joseph Smith pulled out scriptures from the Bible.

"And it came to pass..." the Book of Mormon was written in King James language, even though Joseph Smith was supposed to have been given the revelations of the Jewish tribes becoming "dark skinned" Indians and writing in "reformed Egyptian heiroglyphics." The Bible was at least written in the languages of the times.

September 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

Jeremy

To accept evolution or creation takes a fair amount of faith.

September 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

Paul

Evolutionary theory has been proven by several experiments involving the observation of genetic changes in fruit flies over several generations.

Wrong. No one chooses to believe in evolution, it's based on scientific facts. Religion on the other hand, is all belief without any fact.

September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

Muhammad

Try to make science explain this fact: does time go back infinitely? must there be not a beginning? If time does not go back infinitley then we reach a conclusion that time is also created and there was a beginning of time and what we use today (clocks, calendars, and names as days or months) are only measurements of time and not time its self. Religion is based on facts but false religion as you know it is not based on facts. So search more about Islam and don't listen to the media and get rid of the invisible shield around you.

September 8, 2011 at 2:28 pm |

bajadelmar

You're a perfect example of religious double-talk and brainwashing.

September 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

PJ

Religion is not based on facts. It is based on faith.

How ridiculous that we honor a method of thinking that's core tenant is, "We have nothing to prove this, but you just have to believe it." All ideas are not equal, some are supported by evidence and others are simply believed. In what other areas of society do you want to switch over to faith based thinking? Medicine? Don't try to discover the cause of the disease, just drink some holy water and hope it goes away. Technology? Don't try researching to invent the microchip, pray that god will give us a machine to send messages to people on the other side of the planet.

There is reality and there is superstition. Not an ounce of progress in human history has been brought forward by following the tenants of superstition.

September 8, 2011 at 2:37 pm |

Muhammad

@ PJ
And who told you that religion doesnt go side by side with "real" science? Religion doesnt tell you to stop researching and not invent machines or use technology. And saying religion did not do us an ounce of progress tells how ignorant of a person you are.

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

MaybeAgnosticMaybeNot

And God said, "Let the Lead isotope ratios found in this galena indicate the earth is 3.66 billion years old." And then He rested.

September 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm |

Tonelok

@mike
Taking a 150year sample when trying to determine human impact in global climate is very short-sighted. It can be very easily swayed by other factors to tip the results. The 12 year solar cycle, for instance, has shown to be a more influential factor in global average temperature that any other factor to date.
.
you have to look at a much larger sample size to be able to determine our pressure on the world. 10,000 years ago there was an ice age, before we even knew what oil was. Before that, before dinosaurs were killed off, temeratures were much higher. Ice cores in antarctica have shown that the world temp rises and falls over 1000's of years, not in a few generations.
.
I'm not saying humans have NO impact on the world, I just think it is greatly overstated.

September 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm |

smartaz

You have to wonder at times when they find "new fossils" whether they were just found remains of some prehistoric, deformed inbreeders. I cannot help but look at some people who fit that bill today and just think "I really hope this guys skeleton isn't found 1 million years from now. I would hate for him to be the model of what we used to be."

Sigh.. Theory does not mean that it is not believed by scientists. Gravity is a theory too, want to try to float? The specific mechanics of how we evolved are still being discovered. There is still no evidence that shows the evolution is wrong. The bible is not evidence, in case you are wondering.

September 8, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

Gerry

I don't think you really know the difference between a law and a theory if you can ask that question.

September 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

ryan

Go to wikipedia and look up what a scientific theory is. Theories and laws are talking about two different thing. The idea that evolution is "just a theory" is probably the biggest misconception about evolution. Have you ever heard of germ theory of disease, or atomic theory, or heliocentric theory?( the idea that the earth revolves around the sun) Do you really think science isn't sure about these things? Theories have tens of thousand of fact in them. There's no one fact about any of these theories. Please go look up what a law and a theory is please. There different things.

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

EricM

Apologies, misspoke with law/theory.

September 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

Empirical

You misunderstand the terms. Not your fault, our education system is very faulty.

Any scientific description of psychical events is a theory. This includes known facts and very poor models. For instance, the theory of gravity and the theory of light are quite well proven and are essentially facts. Same with evolution. However string theory is not fully supported yet.

The term LAW implies a fundamental principle. Meaning, it cannot be derived from previous ideas and concepts. For instance the conservation of momentum law. You can't derive it, you have to simple demand that the initial and final state equal.

September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

TheWiz71

Comparing religion with scientific inquiry, or specifically, comparing religious faith with knowing the scientific fact of evolution is like comparing a sheep and a bicycle. They are two entirely different things, they have two separate purposes. But, I suppose that unlike those two things, they can be complementary. There have been, and are, plenty of scientists who go about their work in part out of a sense of spiritual vocation. Many important scientific advances have been made by people of faith, in fields from astronomy to genetics. So, it's a false argument.

September 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

LuisWu

Not really. Religious people deny evolution and point to the Adam and Eve nonsense as an alternative. Or else they believe in the magical "poofing" of humanity by an invisible supernatural being. Anyone that denies scientific evidence yet clings to ancient mythology just isn't very intelligent.

September 11, 2011 at 1:56 pm |

CommonSense

The existence of an eternal creator IS SCIENTIFIC FACT....AND just plain common sense. To believe that ALL existence just somehow!!!??? came to be from nothing is absolutely ludicrous. The understanding of an Eternal Creator has nothing to do with religion....PURE SCIENCE SAYS THAT NOTHING can just come in and of itself....PERIOD!!!! THE LAW OF CAUSALITY DEMANDS A SOURCE....A STARTING POINT....A BEGINNING.... To sit back and say that just pure energy, cosmic force or whatever else you want to dream up created all this is to say that a tornado can just whiz through a junk yard and create an F-16 all by itself.....PLAIN STUPID!!!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

aaron

Where did come from? Place your answer next to my question.

September 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

Empirical

There could be a god, but there is no proof. Also it is religion that says that everything came from nothing. Scientific studies say everything came from somewhere and have follow-up theories from where it came.

September 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

Kronk

If everything has to have a beginning then where was god's beginning?

September 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

stemcell

dope

September 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

LuisWu

You need to change your ID from Common Sense to "Ignorant Nonsense".

September 11, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

aaron

Brain washed is what believers are. And how many of them can tell you the history of their own Bible? Not many becouse if they could they might question what the claim as facts.

I actually believe that both creation and evolution go hand in hand. I believe in the initial origin (creation) of mankind and all species by a superior being that I like to call God and that he set the evolution of the planet in motion. Which, I think can be supported by the fact that we [neither evolutionists nor Christians] absolutely know the factual origin of the universe or God other than what we have been taught by mankind's writings (i.e. religious writings, scientific theory such as the Big Bang Theory to name one, etc). I can believe evolution occurs from that initial point of creation, but it makes more sense to me to believe that each species was created initially and evolved (through adaptaion to climate/environmental changes, etc.). So, I think you will find undisputibal evidence on the evolutionary side that species evolve, but it seems totally unfeasible to think that the various species would evolve from one, few, or a small number of micro-organisms into what we are today. This is where I think evolutionists may be chasing their tails (no pun intended), it just doesn't seem feasible. So, I totally buy into the various stages of an evolutionary man that the article discusses. I would theorize that once mankind evolved to a stage of intellect where we could use symbols and eventually communicate our thoughts into writings, is when some of these thoughts materialized into faiths and beliefs like Christianity, to name one. I do believe that mankind was inspired by or influenced by that same superior being to seek the truth about him, and that is just what both evolutionist and Christians are doing . Only evolutionists reject the Christian idea of a superior being and simply contend with an unknown origin. This is not all bad. I think it is good and it would be even better if we would pool our energy/thoughts/intellect together to find more truths about our life here on the third rock! Why we have to have so much anymosity among each other baffles me. As a Christian, I accept evolutionary findings and it helps me continue to persue the truth and never resting on my own conceits or my own wisdom, but I look to the supreme being in prayer/meditation whatever you want to label it to reveal more truths, whether through scientists or revelation knowledge. Work together, people...haven't we at least by now evolved to as much of a mature level where we can collectively agree on some things and collectively deny others...such as extra-terestrials...now that is a whole other arguement! LOL

September 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

Jamie

I Love the fact that you beleive in God but, I just wanted to say please dont let Satan deceive you. God created us in his image. We did not evolve! If you believe in evolution you cannot believe in God of the Bible. Please read this website and pray that God will help you understand in this satanic fallen world! http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml May God be with you. Place your faith on Jesus Christ and the cross! With Love Jamie

September 8, 2011 at 3:09 pm |

JoeProfet

@Jamie, I am a prayer warrior in truth. I actually believe in God more than I can express in writing or by telling you in person. My only point really was to show that humans really didn't evolve, they adapt to their climates and environment. By that I mean, when God created us in His image, we still had to adapt to our various environments and the changes of the planet. So, I like to see what evolutionary scientists keep digging up, but I only believe in God, so don't worry, I'm saved and I believe!! Peace!

September 8, 2011 at 3:29 pm |

Tom

Amazing.
It seems that every time I read an article and I scan the comments for interesting thoughts on the subject, they are frequently infested with Christian silliness and/or hatred toward Obama.

What has happened to us?
Is it because of the fears after 9/11 or the economic crisis?
I feel like Amercia is backpedaling.

September 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

badlobbyist

And what is really funny is that they are totally oblivious to how much they resemble that Other Religion for which they harbor so much fear and hatred.

September 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

whiteoak

DO YOU understand how science works and "get" evolution? ARE YOU, like me, disgusted with these ridiculous debates? 🙂

IF YOU agree with me that it's a WASTE OF VALUABLE TIME to continue arguing with people who insist upon bringing religious views to every conversation about new scientific evidence for evolution (especially evidence that illuminates our understanding of human origins), please PUT A SMILEY in a new comment and bow out now.

We have better things to do. We know how science refines knowledge, leads to new ideas, and brings up exciting new questions about our world. We're not going to change any minds here.

Have a great afternoon! 🙂

September 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

EricM

Let's talk when it becomes the LAW of Evolution and not the THEORY of Evolution. Until then, everyone has a theory....

September 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

brobin

Actually, science has evidence for their theory and it continues to be born out with new evidence. Creationists have myths, not even theories, which we have plenty of evidence is wrong. You need to get over the word "theory". If you have a better scientific theory which fits the evidence better then evolution, science would love to see it. Unfortunately, you don't.

September 8, 2011 at 2:12 pm |

MarkG

EricM, do you have any idea of the immense amount of scientific evidence required to elevate an idea to a "Scientific Theory"? Unfortunately, few non-scientists understand the difference between the meaning of the word "theory" in the common vernacular versus the scientific meaning. Anytime someone tries to refute the scientific theory of evolution by saying, "it's only a theory", it tells me that they know absolutely nothing about science.

September 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

Michael

EricM
"Let's talk when it becomes the LAW of Evolution and not the THEORY of Evolution. Until then, everyone has a theory...."

Like the Germ THEORY of Disease? The Heliocentric THEORY of the solar system? The Atomic THEORY of matter? General Relativity our THEORY of gravity? Go ahead try looking up the Germ Law of Disease, Atomic Law of matter, etc. They don't exist... do you doubt these theories as well?

The difference between a law and theory is not the difference between proven and uncertain, the difference is that a theory proposes a mechanism while laws just codify observations. For instance, Einstein's THEORY of General Relativity is not "weaker" that Newton's Law of Gravitation; in fact, it explains more observations to a higher degree of accuracy and has supplanted Newton's Law (though Newton's is a good estimation and the math is A LOT easier). But it's a "theory" because it proposes a mechanism: matter warps space time causing it to curve and change the movement of nearby bodies. No one doubts it is true, in fact if it wasn't true, GPS WOULD NOT WORK (not to mention atomic weapons and power wouldn't happen either). Newton's Law on the other had basically said, "The force of gravity is proportional to the product of the masses over the square of the distance between them. Why? I don't know, that just the way it is." THAT'S why it's a law, because it DOESN'T EXPLAIN.

In fact, although it is counter-intuitive, a theory is actually a stronger statement scientifically than a law, because it proposes a mechanism. Hence we have theories: Atomic Theory, General Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, etc supplanting laws: The law of conservation of mass, the law of gravity the law of conservation of energy, etc.

September 8, 2011 at 2:18 pm |

EricM

brobin, I apologize, I mispoke with my statement of Law/Theory. However, I do believe that science and religion have their places and are not at odds with each. In addition, I do not believe that Evolution disproves the possibility of the existence of God nor his role behind the process of creation/evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

StephenB

Clearly you do not actually understand science. There are no laws in science. Theory is the strongest anything can be called in science. Here is a quick reference for those who don't understand how science works (things can only be supported and not proven, only disproven): "theory" = truth. Claiming it is unsupported because it is the theory of evolution is like claiming things will start to float off the earth because the theory of gravity is wrong.

September 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

Al

Yeh, Eric! Since quantum mechanics is "only a theory" can you tell me how your computer works? Also, the Pythagorean Therm, it would seem, also requires a competing theory, don't you think? I mean, why trust gravity when it's "only a theory"? LOL. I love how you question hard and fast science and refuse to agree with what we observe but believe fervently in a wild-a** guess that says that there's a firmament, lesser light and that man came from dirt being breathed on by a deity. You can see evolution with your own eyes through the reams of evidence we have that validate it. Yet, you've not one iota of a reason for your belief in your mythological guess other than that you just want to believe it.

September 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

Lee

The Theory of Gravity is also just a Theory. Why don't you jump off a building and prove it wrong.

September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

PallasAthene

*A common misconception is that scientific theories are rudimentary ideas that will eventually graduate into scientific laws when enough data and evidence has been accumulated. A theory does not change into a scientific law with the accumulation of new or better evidence. A theory will always remain a theory, a law will always remain a law.* Please remember, gravity is also just a theory 🙂

September 8, 2011 at 2:27 pm |

Tn Ken

OK. Here's my take. We know there appears to be a repetitive structure throughout the universe. We see the structure of all elements in the periodic table that then can form and combine in predetermined and expected ways following preset natual laws. I say that life in the universe is a given from the start. The variations of possible structure take place in the characteristics of the DNA molecule just as the elements are explained by the periodic table. All life forms can be contrived anywhere in the universe but only those that can adapt to their environment will survive. Variations will take place in survival along the reproductive process. But the core species is spelled out inherently in the DNA molecule.

September 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

Tonelok

@lancemick
The 'afterlife' that people feel they experience when the die and are revived most have described as a white tunnel, or 'walking toward the light'. This phenomenon has been shown to be a chemical reaction in the body when on the brink of death. Your brain releases certain chemicals that trick your eyes into this illusion.

September 8, 2011 at 1:59 pm |

lancemick

I am trying not to laugh at your comment. Its okay, it means you've heard about the phenomenon and have only heard one laughable reply to refute it and believed it.

Did you know that its not physically possible to have dreams or cognitive thought processes when sedated? The whole point of general anesthesia is to remove your consciousness, hence your ability to THINK. Yet, when the brain is starved form oxygen, incapable of firing, it is generating coherent sequences of thoughts and processes as opposed to flashing random images and confusing sequences? One particular case had a woman PUT TO DEATH on purpose – to have a brain tumor operated on. She had ZERO brain activivty – not to mention a heart beat or the flow of oxygen. Her brain waves were monitored and they registered NOTHING.

She came back to describe a cohesive sequence of events – life after death – AND she also reported viewing the actual procedure from a vantage point above the operating table. Her observations were validated and confirmed with 100 percent accuracy.

Yeah... chemical releases....

I suggest you read a lot more on the subject if you have the interest.

September 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

Al

@Lancemick, back when I was a christian, I was excited to find out about a hospital that ran an experiment for a year (or so, I don't remember all the details but I'm sure you can find the study if you want). They put some words on a poster on the top shelf of the operating room and asked all patients who had near fatalities to describe anything they saw while "dead". The result, even among those who claimed to experience the phenomenon of being out of body, was that not one reported on the paper placed in obvious view of anyone ascending through the room. The idea of seeing after death has not ever been supported even though the claim has been tested. If you believe that it is possible, you do so purely because you want to and not because your belief is supported with any evidence of any kind.

September 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm |

lancemick

AL – what you describe is a case of urban legend. I have heard that bs story too. However, I have read many, many more instances of just the opposite. Cases where an OBE person described things in the operating room that they could not possibly view. The doctors, who many times admit their beliefs are founded in science only, state they have no scientific explanation.

There is a prominent former Neurologist / Neurosurgeon who also taught at Harvard who had an NDE. He also was a non-believer for obvious reasons. He says there is NO / ZERO scientific explanation.

I find it so hypocritical that we has a society can claim facts in the case of our legal system as well as in the scientific field being something that is "Observable and or Eye Witnessed", yet when something that meets these requirements but also shake our material beliefs that they are in-turn discarded as false.

There are literally THOUSANDS and THOUSANDS of these reports. These people all claim an even higher sense of consciousness – and never claim it to be a dream state. They say its REAL. It profoundly changes their lives.

Yet, we do not want to believe these eye witness accounts because..... it flies in the face of our BS Science of materialism.

Talk about close minded!

September 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm |

peick

Gotta ask: If there's so much controversy about which ancestor led to humans, how can there be so much certainty around whether humans descended from these creatures at all?

September 8, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

Dr.K.

Well, because we see modern human traits gradually develop among thousands of fossil individuals, but it is hard to know which ones just carried those traits and which ones actually are literal ancestors. It's sort of like looking at a room full of cats and not knowing which ones are the grandparents and parents of a particular kitten. Not knowing which one does not mean that the kitten did not come from parents, and you might start narrowing it down based on which ones share some traits (hair color, eye color, sixth toe, dna patterns, whatever) with the kitten. Now think about tracing skeletal traits through millions of generations of hominids.

Maybe this is a dumb analogy, but it is an attempt...

September 8, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

Empirical

Easy question to answer, but takes some reading to convince an uneducated mind. If you would really like to understand how the evolution theory was developed, I strongly recommend studying it. It does not take as long as you may think to understand its supporting evidence, however it does take a long time and miss-information to formulate counter theories. If you want to try to form a counter argument to evolution, you will have to study biology, chemistry, anthropology and physics for some time and maintain an amazingly closed mind.

September 8, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

JoeProfet

Oh please, please for just a moment, please come down to our lowly humble level of existence and enlighten us...won't you???

September 8, 2011 at 3:18 pm |

stemcell

Please excuse Joe here. He has misplaced his tinfoil hat.

September 8, 2011 at 3:56 pm |

SDFrankie

Great question. If you want a real answer go to your local community college and enroll in a biology class. They will teach you the answer and how to see this stuff for yourself. It's ok that you don't understand right now. The question is: Do you want to learn or do you just want to argue?

September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

elandau

Hi peick, that is a good question. Obviously when you go looking for fossils that are millions of years old, you aren't going to find a skeleton with name tag that says "Hello, I am the ancestor of Homo sapiens." On the other hand, paleoanthropologists can look at how similar various anatomical features are to ours, and whether there is a natural progression from a primitive feature to an advanced feature in the fossil record. We need to have more fossils from before and after Australopithecus sediba to see if it fits in our lineage.

Thanks for reading!

Elizabeth Landau, CNN

September 8, 2011 at 3:23 pm |

paul

It constantly amazes me that the no evidence,one book only,mythical spontaneous appearing creation morons,continue to disbelieve in the FACT of evolution not the theory,as more and more eveidence is bought forth each and every year.We all know faith is for those that have no evidence.So ,to the creationist fantasy camp members,what are these fossil skulls they have been finding since ancient chinese times? And if the earth is 5,000 years old ,does that make the warrior they found frozen dated to 5,00 years in italy a direct ancestor of adam and eve? When wil christians grow up and stop dragging the rest of us sane people into their pit of insanity and stupidity?

September 8, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

KeithTexas

It is pretty funny that these discussions are about God and Science instead of the new discovery. It is a new discovery no matter if there is a God or not.

And, to answer all the questions at once. No, God was not a scientist.

September 8, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

Prometheus

And here I was...thinking that my Ex-Wife held all the clues to human evolution...yet ANOTHER thing she was WRONG about. The Biotch...

September 8, 2011 at 1:46 pm |

Kris

Hi yall, will you visit SaveMaci.ORG

September 8, 2011 at 1:41 pm |

lancemick

I can only laugh at this article. I admire the honesty of the article, but you cannot help but coming away thinking they haven't a clue what yet another ape fossil proves.

I am not here to refute evolution. Nor am I here to push any specific religion. What I pose to all of you extremists on either side of the argument is as follows:

What of life after death? What of consciousness surviving material death? There are 1000's upon 1000's of unexplainable cases of people clinically dying and coming back to report life after death. Scientific proof? There is that too – in the form of people being clinically dead or unconscious (via sedation or trauma) yet accurately reporting events they could not be privy to unless awake and not clinically dead.

There are many scientists today who are studying the possibility of consciousness existing without the material brain / mind. There are scientists and doctors who have had their own near death experiences and report life after death.

I have read many books both for and against this phenomenon, as I try not to form an opinion until I can digest as much information as possible. To date, the evidence heavily supports life after death.

Is this some form of super evolution or proof of a creator?

Choose yourself.

September 8, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

Theodore Mann

I can tell you are a thinker. I do not view science and religion as being at odds with each other; however, many scientists begin with one bias or another. The atheist argument is basically that a cosmos –> life is simpler than God –> cosmos –> life. In addition, the atheist begins with the assumption, I am, therefore I think. These positions can definitely be attacked.

Think in terms of argumentation, not science.

September 8, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

lancemick

Exactly correct. I agree. I believe in both Science and a Creator. They are not at war in my world. Just the opposite; Science has only further instilled my belief in God and the hereafter.

September 8, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

Sharon

It is simply amazing to me that you are still stuck in the pre-Darwin dark ages. Grow up.

September 8, 2011 at 2:04 pm |

lancemick

Either you replied to the wrong comment or it is you who is devoid of logic and reason. My question is based in science and fact. You so closely hold your convictions verses anything faith based that reason and logic are not enough to convince you otherwise. Seems rather hypocritical, don't you think?

The only thing that hurts my head is the constant /face palming from reading the level of idiocy in these comments.

September 8, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

EricM

I agree.

September 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

MyTake

There *is* no debate. There is no scientist controversy. The fact of Evolution are facts and they are undeniable. You can believe in God if you wish but that does not do away with the facts of Evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

lancemick

Hence my first statement about not refuting Evolution. What I am not sure of though is the direct connection between primates and humans.

September 8, 2011 at 2:23 pm |

Tony

Sorry, but you are misinformed. There is not one single fact to support life after death. The evidence suggests just the opposite.

September 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm |

EricM

Really, what evidence?

September 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

lancemick

Really? Do tell. Can you please refer me to any credible text to back up your statement? I have read everything I can get my hands on about this subject and can tell you you're absolutely incorrect. But due tell...

Something tells me you wont have an answer.

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

Inglourious

Someone whose brain has died due to a lack of oxygen is truly dead. No one has ever come back from that. Others whose hearts stopped for a short period of time, or whose brain activity became minimal for a short period of time, were never actually dead.

September 8, 2011 at 2:31 pm |

laurie

I am laughing at the article right along with you! what nonsense....believing the writings of a man who lost a child at a young age and turned his back on his Creator....you are right, we all must choose....but choose wisely!

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

irishyank2

I'm having a hard time correlating your life after death argument with evolution/creationsm. Even if there is life after death, that does nothing to enhance creationism nor refute evolution, as what I find the most difficult pill to swallow is the creationist refusal to recognize evolution as a part of creation. So coming back to your point – there is no correlation between life after death and creationism as science has merely not yet proven the physical existence of "conscience". Ever heard of the 21 grams theory?

September 9, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

MikeGCNY

It depends... Is that Ice solid Hydrogen Hydroxide? What about the atmospheric pressure? It can snow at 45 degrees in the mountains because the air pressure is lower.
But in order to answer your question: Yes, at sea level, with 1 atmosphere of pressure, hydrogen hydroxide will become a liquid at any temperature above 32 degrees F and below 212 degrees F. Other energies acting on the surface might cause some H2O to become gaseous as well.

September 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

rene

Don't tell the GOP that here is more concrete evidence of evolution. Their unevolved pea sized brains still believe that the earth is 6000 years old and created by a mythical character in the sky in 6 days.

September 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm |

mike

It is hard to believe they are that dumb isn't it. I suspect if Al Gore had said there was no global warming they'd all be screaming there was!

September 8, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

gerald

Mike,

I agree there is global warming and so do many other conservatives. I just don't agree that man is causing it. Similar warmups have occured in the past.

September 8, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

mike

Gerald have you seen the graphs from 1860 to the present in the average global temperature? The 2° rise is pretty easily seen as a straight line with lots of minor fluctuations along the way. However, severe large dents occur when industrial output was drastically lowered, the great depression, WWI and WWII. Call it coincidence if you like but note also the spike during the ramp up of production prior to WWII. Fascinating stuff when you couple that with CO2 levels since the industrial revolution.

September 8, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

sbast118

Nice try, Mike, but seeing how you both believe in evolution, obviously, I would have anticipated far more intelligent posts. If you're aware of evolution, and if you've studied geography at all, you would understand that warming and cooling are geological processes that have occurred since the beginning of time. Did you know that we actually had an ice age in the 1930's? Look it up! Alas.... this is not to say that we're not poisoning our atmosphere, mind you. It just means that when pollution gets really, really bad, mankind is kinda hoping that you'll be among the first to perish. However, in the event welfare goes down the tubes (you live in Wisconsin, perhaps?), we relish the thought of not having to wait nearly so long.

September 8, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

AlexK

Its not really even a scientific debate anymore. Rick Perry couldn't even think of one single scientist that supports his belief that humans are not causing global warming.

99% of scientists believe humans are causing global warming. They have significant scientific evidence and it has been proven by dozens of different scientists all performing independent research. The only people who still think we are not causing it are conservative politicians with no science background.

Look at how crazy the weather has been. Massive hurricanes and storms are constant now. Long brutal winters and scorching hot summers. These phenomenon have all been predicted by scientists 30 years ago. They are all evidence to support humans causing global warming and the seriousness of this issue.

September 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

gerald

JUst looked at a couple of plots Mike. Sorry the depression dip is not there. The dip during wwII is debatable according to what I see in the ones I looked at.

September 8, 2011 at 2:51 pm |

gerald

AlexK – do you self a favor and do a search on "Global Warming Petition Project".

September 8, 2011 at 2:55 pm |

KrashUndBurn

"""Similar warmups have occured in the past."""

True, but not at this rate.

As much as you would prefer to believe otherwise, scientists in many disciplines from around the globe have been comparing their data and findings, and the overall picture has most of them very concerned.

I feel more confident in learning about this from scientists than from Fox News hacks. How about you?

September 8, 2011 at 5:57 pm |

sbast118

ahhh but you have it all wrong. See, the original liberal democrats researched the bible years ago then immediately determined that the earth was formed during the 1400's. This is a fun fact that you may actually look up if you prefer. But....I doubt you will. It's too much work for people like you to offer up more than an idle insult. Say, get your check this month?

September 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

Buddha

sbas, that's possibly the dumbest thing I ever heard. I get a check every second Friday if you're interested in my life to that extent. Let's see the link for "original liberal democrats researched the bible years ago then immediately determined that the earth was formed during the 1400's" if it exists. Rene, come on, are you saying most GOP voters believe in evolution? Good one, man. Pretty funny stuff.

September 8, 2011 at 1:55 pm |

Bible Clown

Good Lord, I think he's talking about the Millerites who thought the world was going to end in 1836. They became the 7th Day Adventists – totally liberal all the way I guess.

September 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

gerald

Rene,

Do you always broad brush. I could say all democrats are communists. I won't but some truly are. I am okay with those who believe in strict creationism but don't hold to it myself and no many others who are conservative who don't.

September 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

Aaron

hey umm.. how again are democrats communist? please explain?

September 8, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

TheWiz71

Just because a person is a theist, and specifically, may adhere to one of the three Abrahamic faiths, does not mean that that same person does not look to science to teach us the facts of how our universe and our world came to be, and how it works. To just dismiss theism so insultingly (and thereby dismissing the faith of billions of people, and the spiritual journeys of perhaps even your own ancestors) does nothing to help the discourse. Religious faith and scientific inquiry run on parallel as opposed to intersecting tracks most of the time. They have two different reasons for being. Most people of faith that I know look to science to teach us the "how, what, when, and why (in terms of mechanical causes)", and to their faith to explain the "why" (in terms of meaning and purpose). Classical Christianity (which is altogether different than the fundamentalist Southern Baptist type in which the Bible is mistaken for a scientific textbook) believes that Jesus came to take away our sins, not our minds. So, you don't want to believe, that's your business (and in my personal opinion, your problem), but don't go saying stuff like that so insultingly, you only alienate people who may agree with you, and help to exacerbate the divisions that are being promulgated (on false pretenses) in our culture.

September 8, 2011 at 1:54 pm |

JR

I agree 100%. The rhetoric in which some like to deal is too often extremely broad, and vile. I also do not understand the "Religions want to silence science" comments, especially since the Vatican has acknowledged and accepts evolution. It's the same as lumping all Arab terrorists in with the average peaceful Muslim. There are crazy sects of all kinds, that does not mean you can lump all of us who believe in something much greater than us as idiots or that we ignore science. Science and a belief in a Divine power are extremely compatible, especially considering that a majority of science is based on beliefs and theories, and has yet to disprove the concept of intelligent design.

September 8, 2011 at 2:10 pm |

Robert

It's interesting how many unique links in the human evolution chain have been found. You would expect there to be more than oh...one of each. You would also expect to have more than 40% of the bones in ONE spot. Seriously, how can it be taken seriously to construct a skeleton out of a few pieces of bone from multiple dig sites miles away from each other and call it a genus or species? Imagine an archaeologist thousands of years from now trying to reconstruct a Ford Mustang from a few dozen parts found in six locations across the US, each part only partial and less than a foot long. Imagine how much conjecture and flat-out guesswork would be involved, assuming the archaeologist had no photo to work from.

That's the laughable state of this fool's errand known as "trying to the line of human evolution".

By the way, several years ago, Australopithicus afarensis, or "Lucy", was disproven. It was confirmed by scientists as being, in fact, ONLY A MONKEY.

September 8, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

DaProfessor

Ah - another religious faction foooool heard from, probably thinking the world will end in the year 2000 (whoops - wrong again). And, no doubt believes in his heat of heart that the world began just 2000 years ago somewhere in a garden?

September 8, 2011 at 1:42 pm |

GregPine

Nope...probably the same fool who has a book thousands of years old...and on a daily basis world events are proving it right.

September 8, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'By the way, several years ago, Australopithicus afarensis, or "Lucy", was disproven. It was confirmed by scientists as being, in fact, ONLY A MONKEY.'
No it wasn't.
And lucy isnt the only skeleton that they have found by the way.

September 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

Robert

They found a pile of bones, no complete skeletons. "Lucy's" pelvis was shattered, and it was speculation based mainly on the small bone size that it was even female. Different people attempted to assemble the bones and came up with different results. Also, critical pieces were missing, leading to more guesswork, and the resulting "birth canal" would hardly be big enough to pass a chimp's head, much less an australopthicene. It should have been classified as "chimp" to begin with, but to make things even more fun, the pelvis is not heart-shaped and lacks ridges, marking it as male, not female.

Lucy's hands and feet are not those of a primate that would normally walk on the ground. Its arms are proportioned like a chimp. The fingers and toes are elongated and curved, more consistent with a primate that would spend most of its time swinging from tree to tree.

Lucy's ribs are round in cross-section, consistent with apes. Humans have flatter ribs. The ribs also fit together as a conical shape, consistent with apes, not barrel-shaped, like humans.

Lucy was nothing but a chimp.

"There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it.... In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age.... Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain." (Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind (New York: Simon & Schuster))

September 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

Bible Clown

Robert, at a certain point our ancestors began to transcend evolution. They broke a leg, and used a crutch instead of dying. They had bad teeth, and learned to cook food and cut it with sharp shells. No matter how they looked, they began to shape themselves, and so the ribs and stuff only matter on the outside if what was inside was a thinking brain. Worry about details all you want but son, we got fingers on our feet! Why would a god make somebody with useless foot-fingers?

September 8, 2011 at 2:13 pm |

julio

its all fraudulent

September 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

Robert

Actually 6-10,000 years ago depending on if you interpret the lineage given in Genesis as direct or representational; if you interpret it as naming every literal father-son, or if it mentions notable men only, in that lineage. Referring to fathers and sons in Hebrew is known to be used either literally or to mean ancestor/descendant. And no,I believe when the Bible says the end of the world will come like a thief in the night, so anyone saying it will end on a specific date is the one that's a fool. Speaking of which, "The fool has said in his heart, There is no God." (Psalm 14:1)

September 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

TheWiz71

As a Christian, I gotta ask you to stop it. Just stop it. You give the rest of us a bad name. The Bible is not a scientific text book, nor is it strictly a history book either (except as a history of faith and experience of God). As I said in my reply to Rene, Jesus came to take away your sins, not your mind. The world, and the universe were not created 6-10,000 years ago, there probably was not an Adam and Eve not an actual Garden of Eden. To read it only literally robs Scripture of most of its meaning. So, cut it out already.

September 8, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

Theodore Mann

Robert, It was Jesus who said that HE would come like a thief in the night.

September 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

...

You should spend time studying before you speak. Lucy was never confirmed as "just a monkey". She is a member of the species Australopithecus afarensis in the genus Australopithecus, and she certainly is not the only skeleton ever found in this species. You can not dispute the fossil record. In fact, Pope John Paul II recognized evolution to be fact in October 1996. Chimpanzees are 98% genetically identical to Homo Sapiens.... but you go on and keep basing your understanding of the world on a book about an invisible man in the sky.

September 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

Robert

See my post above. Lucy most certainly was disproved, 30 years ago.

September 8, 2011 at 2:09 pm |

Robert

Theodore, Jesus is returning like a thief in the night, yes. His second coming precedes the end of the world, when everyone will be taken to their judgement. It's the same thing.

September 8, 2011 at 2:11 pm |

Theodore Mann

Of course, the Bible may be wrong, but the story is as follows:–

Jesus was executed.
Jesus returned.
The apostles couldn't believe their eyes.
One of them wanted to know whether he would ever see Jesus again.
Jesus replied.
Jesus floated up into the sky, infront of one or two apostles or a bunch of Jews and gentiles. (Luke and Acts seem to differ on this point.)
The apostles stood in line to be beaten by the important Jews. The important Jews did not like people talking about a "false messiah." The apostles believed that they had a duty to tell posterity of what they witnessed (because it was so incredible).

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

Robert

TheWiz, the Bible absolutely is history. It constantly corroborates non-biblical archaeological, anthropological, and paleontogical evidence. People thought the Hittites of the Bible didn't exist until archaeologists found evidence in the area the Bible said they were from. The Bible says Belshazzar succeeded Nebuchadnezzar as king of Babylon, but ancient Babylon historical records don't mention him. But in 1853, archaeologists found an inscription in Ur showing that Belshazzar reigned with his father, Nabonidus.

It's also the historical record of the Hebrews, one of the most detailed of the ancient world. There is no doubt among serious scholars that it is actual history, not epic legend like other ancient cultures. Whether you believe in the involvement of God or not, it is historical fact that the Hebrews were nomadic, were enslaved in Egypt, emigrated from Egypt, swept across Palestine like a terror, set up a kingdom to rival all others, and gradually lost its grandeur due to its loss of faith in the deity it worshipped, allowing outside civilizations to attack and eventually destroy their civilization, leaving only a remnant. This remnant was allowed by Cyrus to return to its homeland and rebuild, which was later taken over like many other civilizations by the Romans. This is all historical FACT.

So don't YOU give Christians a bad name by giving the idea that the Bible is just a collection of feel-good stories and that salvation comes from FEELING you're saved. That's not what the Bible says. You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Bible are true. Either it's all the direct word of God, transmitted to us by men, or it's all a farce. That's where belief comes in.

September 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

Theodore Mann

Lucy may be one of our ancestors. An amoeba may even be one of our ancestors.

These possibilities neither prove nor disprove the existence of things we don't understand.

September 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

Theodore Mann

Robert,

When did I say that church-goers go because they feel good?

They go to pray, and they go because they need each other. Does anyone need you?

September 8, 2011 at 2:30 pm |

Bible Clown

I "disproved" God years ago myself. You mean creationists don't believe in Lucy? Wow, that's news. I thought they did.

September 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

Theodore Mann

I don't know or care what creationists believe. I am telling you MY thoughts.

September 8, 2011 at 2:44 pm |

TheWiz71

Never said that there wasn't history in it. Absolutely there is, but to say that the whole thing must be taken at absolutely literally face value is to miss much of the point. This has nothing to do with discounting Scripture. I hold Scripture to contain all things necessary to salvation. I also hold to the tradition of the small "c" catholic church, that faith must be shaped by three things: Scripture, first and foremost, the tradition of the Church – that is, how Christians throughout history have read and interpreted the Bible, and by our own human, God given, reason. There is nothing in scientific inquiry, nothing in the discovery of the fact of evolution, nothing about the discovery of genetics that contradicts the Christian faith. However, what scientific discoveries such as the true age of the universe, and an increasing scientific understanding of human origins force us to do is to look at the deeper truth of what the first few chapters of Genesis especially mean. Yes, there is history in there, especially the history of the Jews vis-a-vis David, the Babylonian Captivity, and especially history in regards to the events of the New Testament. But, one cannot begin to think that the Creation myth is history without doing violence to the gift of human reason which is itself a gift from God. If your faith depends on there having been a literal Adam and a literal Eve walking around in a literal Garden of Eden, then I feel for you. As for me, the only scientific discovery that could be made that could turn me from Jesus Christ would be the incontrovertible discovery of his bodily remains – which will never happen, thanks to Easter. Believe you me, I am no John Spong. Just think you've carried things too far, and it's Christians who do that who make the atheists think we're all stuck in the Dark Ages.

September 8, 2011 at 3:17 pm |

Theodore Mann

Faith is simply belief in the absence of evidence.

September 8, 2011 at 4:25 pm |

MyTake

Another religious idiot with an uneducated rants. The whole "you would expect to find" is based on what? Nothing other than your completely ignorant assumptions. The facts Evolution cannot be disputed logically or by evidence. Go bak to school moron.

September 8, 2011 at 2:24 pm |

Theodore Mann

Sir, if you have nothing to say, do not insult.

September 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

Bible Clown

Theodore Mann was TOTALLY disproved years ago. It was actually a woman.

September 8, 2011 at 2:34 pm |

Theodore Mann

Cain slew Able. This means that a long time ago, farming killed hunting.

Adam: I want a beautiful woman who never complains, loves sex, never gets fat, and knows her place.

God:That's gonna cost you an arm and a leg!

Adam: Oh my God ... what can I get for a rib?

September 8, 2011 at 2:42 pm |

MyTake

I don't know of a greater insult then to ply the disproven lies of creationism. Your lost is s great example of a lie. Lucy was NOT human correct. She is an example of the oldest relative in the human family tree.

September 8, 2011 at 3:10 pm |

Theodore Mann

I ply the disproven “lies” of creationism because those “lies” make the most sense. Accusing me of lying is what is insulting.

September 8, 2011 at 4:30 pm |

gods_special_snowflake

It doesn't matter – Even if you proved beyond a doubt that evolution is false – how is the next logical step "my invisible, magic sky pappy poofed it all into existence" ???

September 12, 2011 at 4:36 pm |

MikeGCNY

My theory is that we have evolved to the point where our intelligence and science has stalled genetic evolution. If environmental stressors on a whoel group is the key cause for evolution, then our ability to adapt through tool making (it gets cold: animals grow thicker fur, we make coats) has addressed the stressor before mutation could.

September 8, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

aaron

NO. Apendex, ( wrong spelling) a now useless organ. not so in the past. Average hight humans has increased over the past few hundred years. Bye-bye little toe. Another apendage made useless over time. Evelution only ends with the death of a species. But not before it spawns more hopefully.

September 8, 2011 at 1:41 pm |

Theodore Mann

Arron, the appendix contains bacteria, which the large intestine needs to break down food turn food from the stomach into crap for the toilet. (Something like that is true. In any case, the appendix is NOT useless.)

September 8, 2011 at 2:35 pm |

Bible Clown

When the leopard came in the night for my ancestor, he did that grin we apes do so well and said "Surprise! Say hello to my little friend the ANTELOPE THIGHBONE!" Then he crushed its skull. We've stood up to everything that came for us since then, lighting fires to stay warm, learning to tan hides and which plants would help a fever, and now we rule the earth like the dinosaurs and send our thoughts around the globe in lightning bolts.

September 8, 2011 at 2:41 pm |

Theodore Mann

Mr. Clown, All true. A brain is a fierce weapon. So what?

September 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

Matt

Translating the scriptures for the laity was the worst move ever. Keeping it in Latin and allowing the clergy, who were members of the establishment to interpret the scriptures for them is what kept the order. The masses need religion. The masses most certainly do not need to think, they need to believe and obey and they were much easier to control when they didn’t have a bunch of silly scriptures to scratch their heads and obsess over without direct guidance from the clerical representatives of the establishment. Trollish little Sophomores telling everyone they’re stupid for believing in the supernatural is like giving a child a new word and listening to them throw it around without regard to consequences. Someone has to go to war. Someone needs to pay their taxes without questioning, Someone needs to do the thankless jobs for insulting pay with a smile. I’d rather give the masses religion than narcotics, it may not be flawless, but it works. Also, “religions cause war” is ridiculous. Economics causes war, religion helps it fit into plebeian skulls. Religion doesn’t cause anything, it doesn’t even enable anything, it simply facilitates it like grease on a chain that going to spin the sprockets of history regardless. If you want to teach everyone to reason and calculate we’ll end up a planet of wolves with no sheep. You’ll feel much better about finding a way to capitalize on religion than you will by trying to get a cheap ego bloat from insulting it. Religion's detractors are the least creative and insightful people on any message board.

September 8, 2011 at 1:30 pm |

Robert

Satire much?

September 8, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

mike

Ok, you win, I'm starting a religion. Now what shall I call my god, or maybe gods ....??

September 8, 2011 at 1:47 pm |

Theodore Mann

Why start a new religion? And what exactly do you mean my "religion"?

September 8, 2011 at 2:53 pm |

Theodore Mann

According to Aldous Huxley, there are common threads among EVERY religion, including atheism.

September 8, 2011 at 2:54 pm |

Davethecanuck

This perspective will certainly stick in the craw of many...
We're just used to hearing it put in a way that makes us plebs feel better about it.

Theological arguments aside, history shows us that religion is indeed a powerful tool for maintaining control over an ignorant populace. Unfortunately though, a population that becomes too fanatical in their beliefs seem to turn away from reason and also becomes too hard to control. Not translating the scriptures may have worked at a time where we didn't require an overly educated population... but it was inevitable.

I think an equal blend of believers and non-believers will always result in the most stable society, with each side tempering the other.

September 8, 2011 at 2:03 pm |

Harman

200,000 naaaaa, the world is just 6000 years old. can i get an amen from my GOP brethren

September 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

The Greek

Evolution vs. Creation?

You can create a Universe by yourself!

Quantam Physics:

In the empty space within an atom there is an unbelievable amount of energy that is TRILLIONS more powerful that the ENTIRE MASS OF THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE!.

If you can tap into that power, you could CREATE another universe!

Go to this video at minute 4:30 to here it from the scientist himself.

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=videoseries&w=640&h=390]

Recently, scientists finally discovered that what exists in the empty space between an atom's nucleus and the electrons is not empty space but a place that pure intellligence exists that has more latent/potential power than the entire universal energy matter!

Hence the words of Christ: ALL POWER IN HEAVEN AND EARTH has been GIVEN to me. Also, GREATER WORKS THAN THESE YOU CAN DO!. (refering to his miracles).

"And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. http://bible.cc/luke/11-9.htm

September 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

Texedit

What a pity that you have all missed the latest report of the first astronaut to return from outer space. Russian of course, who was removed from his capsule and interviewed, pouring out words of is sightings: "I have seen Heaven," he shouted (in translation) "and I have seen God!" When asked to describe God, he had to catch his breath, before going on: "Well," he said: "First of all.....She's Black!!!"

September 8, 2011 at 1:50 pm |

Theodore Mann

Texedit, the first person in space was a !@#$^%$ rooskie. We have to win the space race.

With respect to the arms race, you cannot prepare for war and prevent war at the same time.

September 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

Theodore Mann

Interesting.

According to Socrates, the only true wisdom lies in knowing you know nothing. On the other hand, Aristotle would call a half-dead/half-alive cat an "absurdity."

September 8, 2011 at 2:58 pm |

Grape Ape

Obviously the link is still missing.

September 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

MyTake

There is no missing link. There are plenty of links showing our relation to these past Homonids ...

September 8, 2011 at 2:26 pm |

Grape Ape

Then why do they keep pushing articles like this on us that prove nothing?

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

Theodore Mann

What link? If you are referring to God (whatever that word means), I'd be inclined to agree.

September 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

Grape Ape

This article proves nothing is my point. Why is it only man evolved superior intelligence? How come other life forms aren't catching on, especially after watching us humans....interesting that out of all the billions of species only one in billions of years can evolve to our level of thinking? Now that is long shot, actually greater than the odds of a supreme being.

September 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

Science is our friend

Do you believe in DNA? Do you believe in genetics? Do you accept that your children inherit traits from you and you inherited traits from your parents? Then you believe in evolution. It bewilders me that people are willing to depend on scientists to give them medicine and medical care, but then say scientists are wrong because they read a story about a couple of people and a talking snake in a book that was written 2000 years ago by people who thought the world was flat. It's called mythology. There are many, many other examples of it.

September 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

Jamie

If you will read your bible, the men that wrote the Bible through God DID NOT THINK THE EARTH WAS FlAT. I got one question for you! If you see a dead animal on the side of the road, in a couple of months that animal is decomposed. Animals eat it and the earths natural decaying process takes place. The mass grave yard of bones that is in our earth how do you suppose they didnt decompose? Because there was a rapid burial that took placed that preserved these animals and humans. Do you know what that was? The flood! The fairy tale is evolutions "theory" of evolution that is taught as a fact when their is more lies and cover ups that I have ever seen. You have two choices. You either believe that God brung us here or something else did! Since you do not follow God's laws and are living a live contrary to what God wants you to live you believe in evolution to make you feel better. I hope you open your eyes and look towards Jesus Christ. The Bible is not a fairy tail. Evolution is the fairy tail! Why want you take a look at this website and the Bible is compared side by side to evolution and lets see what the real science tellls. http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml
To God be the Glory!

September 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

aaron

Why didn't that guy take any of the dinosaurs on baord the boat if the "ONE AND ONLY FLOOD" created all the fossils. Big freakin boat too. Two of meach on one boat and you don't believe in fairy tails. You drop to your knees and pray to every night.

September 8, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

Jamie

aaron,

if you will read that big fairy tale, it will tell you that he took two of every kind! He did not take two of every diffrent breed that there is today! And the boat was very large but, the way satan has it depicted in your head is totally different from what the bible teaches. Just read it and study it brother. I pray that you will find the light and the real truth . Ill use theorys just like evolution does. Did the Animals have to be fully grown? Well it doesnt say so I guess I can infer that. I mean people read the bible and what it tells and is prophesied is happening right in front of our eyes!

September 8, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

MyTake

Ah a "Double Ignoramus". Not only do you not know what is in the Bible you certainly know nothing about science or logic.
"He described a circle upon the face of the waters, until the day and night come to an end.” - A circle is NOT a sphere. Circle is use in other places in the bible. Even if it was assumed to be a sphere how does that take away from the facts of Evolution. You are uneducated to say that least.

September 8, 2011 at 2:33 pm |

Bible Clown

I did read the Bible. It was hilarious. And if you believe that fossils are created by floods, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn that I want to sell you. No, I really do own that bridge. Believe me. Have faith.

September 8, 2011 at 3:26 pm |

Jamie

He also stated that the Earth hung on nothing, the bible also tells us how the circuit of the sun moves through out our solar system, it also tells us how the hydrolic cylce works, it also tells us about the paths in the see. My friend I have a college degree but, even if one didnt that does not make them uneducated. You say christians are double minded. Anything that crushes your view point you say they are stupid uneducated idiots. Well sir God Bless you but, if you do not turn from the blindess you are in you will reap what you sow. And to the guy talking about the strands of flu virus. That has nothing to do with evolution that is adaption of a virus totally different. It didnt turn into cancer did it? You guys have no proof and you know deep down inside that this is a bunch of fairy tales. But, I will tell you what one day and it is coming very soon. That every knee will bow and every tounuge will confess that JESUS CHRIST IS LORD! I mean Jesus had no money, preached his ministry for 3 years, and had no political power what so ever and his word has spread like wild fire for the last two thousand years? What caused that a bunch of made up lies? Do you think someone will die for something they know is a lie? I dont think so. You guys need to get your facts straight. There is nothing in this world that can satisfy you. You will always want more money, pride, and fame. You will never be happy unless you serve our KING JESUS CHRIST. He is everyone's King and the author of the universe whether you like it or not!

September 8, 2011 at 3:27 pm |

Theodore Mann

Sir,

Rarely does one have only 2 choices.
Why did anything/anyone have to bring us here? ... And where is “here”?
Why do evolutionists need to be cheered up?
Why do you want to prove that evolution is false?
What do you mean by “God”?

If I have time, I will look at the website.

September 8, 2011 at 3:28 pm |

Robert

God being the author of all life is also the creator of DNA and genetics etc. Science and religion can peacefully coexist. The issue is when science, which limits itself to only what can be subjected to observation and experimentation in the natural universe, proclaims that there is no power outside of the natural universe, because it can't be observed.

Think about that for a second. You live in a box. You can't see outside the box. Therefore, you proclaim that there is nothing outside the box...on the basis that you can't see outside it. Is that not absurd?

The other issue, along with that, is the idea that a being powerful enough to create matter (which defies our natural laws) would use such a horribly inefficient means of creating life as evolution. Evolutionist scientists can't even agree on the timeframe, but every few years the "evolutionary timeline" is revised to be billions of years longer because scientists keep realizing that statistically, current evolutionary explanations for how we got from no-life to single-celled to what we are today can not possibly have happened even in the billions of years allotted.

Ockham's Razor theory is that the simplest explanation, however implausible, must be the best explanation. Stop bending over backwards trying to disprove a creator based on lack of evidence. The lack of evidence is evidence itself. So is the entire world around you.

September 8, 2011 at 1:43 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'Ockham's Razor theory is that the simplest explanation, however implausible, must be the best explanation. Stop bending over backwards trying to disprove a creator based on lack of evidence. The lack of evidence is evidence itself. So is the entire world around you.'
Then the simplest explanation, looking around at this planet, is evolution. You want to make it more complicated by adding a supernatural spell casting being creating everything and setting down rules for people to follow to detemrine where they go when they die.

September 8, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

Jamie

Cedar Rapids,

Have you ever witnessed evolution? NO! So how is this whole planet evolution?

September 8, 2011 at 2:08 pm |

literate

Well said.

As humans, we think we know everything. And we think we know everything because our brain tells us we know everything. But according to neuroscientists, our brains and analytical thought processes are limited and have yet to reach their fullest potential. Therefore, we say that God doesn't exist because we don't observe God based the resources that we have. But the tools and resources that we have to observe are available to us (yet or ever, you choose). Therefore, atheists and others say "God doesn't exist". If people from the 8th century said that atoms and cellular mitochondria don't exist, would you believe them back then? What about today?

Flawed circular thinking. If we can't measure something, it doesn't mean it does not exist – it means we don't yet have the tools to observe, measure or disprove that thing.

September 8, 2011 at 2:29 pm |

Sam

Evolutionary Biologist are not interested in disproving God, or describing the origins of life. The same way that early astronomers were not interested in disproving God or describing the origins of life. The facts are that observation in both cases lead scientists to what they believe to be the most probably solutions to basic questions (we evolved from a simpler organism, the world is not the center of the universe). These are attempts at describing the reality in which we live in a meaningful/useful way. Early Astronomy lead to physics which has contributed hugely to human advancement, theology eventually made piece with Galileo. Evolutionary theory laid the seeds for genetics and much of the biomedical research which is continuing to improve the human experience, theology will eventually make piece with Darwin. While I agree that it is close minded of those who would use evolution to argue there is no God. I would be careful not to follow into the same trap, it is equally close minded to argue the potential existence of God invalidates evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 2:32 pm |

brobin

Yet, I am to believe that there is a very specific guy, outside that box, that has 10 commandments, etc. Ie.. you have a myth. Other people have other myths. As an atheist, I don't say I know everything, but I reject your myths. The fact that I don't know what is outside that box doesn't mean I should suddenly decide a pink elephant is out there, dangling my universe box from a string. If I wrote that story down, it wouldn't be any more true 2000 years later.

September 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

Logical Answers

@Jaime,

Actually, anyone can see evolution at work. They're called bacteria and viruses. Ever notice how there's a different flu strain every year? That's because one of the previous ones adapted (i.e. EVOLVED) to the antibiotics and became a new strain. Problem solved.

September 8, 2011 at 2:49 pm |

Theodore Mann

When I and my brother were relaxing in the womb, would we have been dumb to consider life other than us two?

Matter can be created! E = mc squared! Both are considered to have mass. Space (or spacetime?) is considered to have negative mass. So the mass of stars is canceled out by the negative mass of the space between those stars. Same argument with the big bang and the expansion of the universe. It was an expansion not just of material, but of spacetime itself.

What is absurd is a cat that is both half dead and half alive. According to Confucious, the most difficult thing in the world is finding a black cat in a dark room, especially if the cat does not exist.

The fact that model X is simpler than model Y, does weigh in favor of X, but than how does one account for desire in the first place? If people are tools by which the universe understands itself, why does the universe need understanding? A chess computer can defeat me, but it has no idea of that defeat.

September 8, 2011 at 3:47 pm |

TheWiz71

I got news for you. Genetics was pioneered by a priest of the Roman Catholic church. Galileo was a believing Christian until the day he died. Newton was a theist. To say that people of faith are stuck in the dark ages and materialist scientists are all enlightened isn't just overly simplistic, it's wrong. So, learn some history and you will learn that people of faith have also been instrumental in some of those same scientific advances that you name, and they did their work, oftentimes, out of a sense of spiritual vocation. So, in a manner of speaking, faith is your friend too.

September 8, 2011 at 3:24 pm |

ELIF

iT CERTAINLY SAD OF WHAT WANT TO BELIEVE. THEY HAVE NO CONVICTION AND LACK FACTS . FICTION IS WHEN SOMETHING DOES NOT EXISTS. FOR THOUSAND OF YRS ARCHEOLOGY FOR FINDS AND THEY DID. JOB AND DAVID TALK ABOUT A ROUND WORLD , POSSIBLE DINSAOURS. dAWIN , HUXTELY R JUST SCIENTISTS WHO R NOW DEAD. THEY R GONE , I DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT THEY WROTE MUCH ABOUT. YET BIBLE HAS STTOD THE TEST FOR THOUSANDS OF YEARS. IF SOME ON THIS SITE WANT TO BELIEVE THEY CAM OUT BLOOP AND OUR ANCESTORS WERE MONKEYS THEN THATS THE WAY YOU WORDS COME OUT. Making no senses and not checking facts. the human brain is not evolution of time , but a design of the lord for you think and he did gave you the right to express your views. You should than him not slam the door on him. as for God killing all those people , i guess God ordered the destruction of japans cities for being evil. Get your fact street. The create does create , but has the right to destroy when wickedness consumes the earth like it also does now. WE will pray for u to see the light , before u go into deep darkness which has no ending to it. Believe in Christ and be saved.

September 8, 2011 at 4:16 pm |

Bob

"The entire 'tree' is based on assumptions.'

Same argument for the Bible. . . . Big difference in the logic of the "assumptions" on both sides."

I agree. We can verify that some things the Bible says are true, but not everything. We who believe the Bible believe what we cannot verify, based on what we can, and based on the involvement God, who can do the otherwise impossible.

The assumptions of evolution are made because they are necessary to sustain the theory. You can believe in evolution if you wish. Just don't accuse me of rejecting science because I don't agree with your assumptions.

Have you heard that in the last 60 years the microbes afflicting us humans have evolved in response to the use of antibiotics and at this time most antibiotics are ineffective. If you believe to this real life truth, this is an evolutionary response by the microbes to the use of antibiotics. Somehow the microbes which survived the antibiotics have multiplied and now they are immune to our medical treatments.
All the fruits and vegetables and meat we have right now on our plates are the result of planned and unplanned genetic manipulation which started by the first farmers in the Middle East and continues for good or bad up to to our times.This also shows evolution at work right in front of our eyes. By they way there have been numerous experiments which show evolutionary change in microorganisms under changes of controlled environmental conditions.

September 8, 2011 at 1:51 pm |

aaron

The corn you eat today did not exist just a 1000 years ago. It looked more like the mini corn cobbs you get in your asian take out. Thanks to the Incas and evelution.

September 8, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

Bible Clown

"Just don't accuse me of rejecting science because I don't agree with your assumptions." Wow! OK, then don't accuse me of rejecting religion just because I don't believe in God. That's just stupid, man, at least TRY not to sound ignorant.

September 8, 2011 at 4:02 pm |

Theodore Mann

Bob, when you assume, you make an ASS out of U and ME!

Assumptions are made because people want truth.

The tree goes something like this:
Experience  Assumption  Belief

Belief and doubt are strange bedfellows (like comedy and tragedy). Both are powerful. In Mark (first written Gospel), Jesus states that we can perform greater miracles than He ever did simply through belief. (On the other hand, I have yet to make the sun rise in the north.) The fact that Thomas doubted he saw Jesus after the crucifixion is significant, but I am not sure why.

September 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

Ron

So many people writing about something they know nothing about. Writing because their belief systems are challenged. Closed minds always prefer to remain closed. Opening them up allows a bit of fresh air, but it's very scary. Some folks woud rather suffocate.

September 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

EricM

Ron, it is funny because most often it is the liberal mindset who claim to have an open mind, but once they are approached by a belief that is different from their's (religious, political, whatever), they write the other person off as a crockpot who it closed minded and they are not willing to listen. Now, believe me, there are plenty of crackpots on both sides of the isle, but who is the closed minded person? The person who has a different opinion or the person who refuses to listen to them?

September 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

gerald

Ron, you write as if religion and science are opposed to one another. I happen to have a geology degree and have study science my whole life. I suspect I know more about science than you and find good science and good religion to be compatible. It is only prejudice that allows you to post as you have.

September 8, 2011 at 1:53 pm |

Bible Clown

Eric, I'm trying not to write you off as a "crock pot." You aren't a slow cooker, are you? Fast food all the way?

September 8, 2011 at 4:04 pm |

Theodore Mann

Crock pots are better than fryers for making delicious food.

September 8, 2011 at 4:10 pm |

Theodore Mann

If I open up my mind too much, I'll start telling girls that I'm a Libras are better in bed!

September 8, 2011 at 4:07 pm |

Klytus Im Bored

I hate that this scientific article interrupted a perfectly logical witnessing-session on the part of the lovely fundie brethren.

Yes god's people, that is sarcasm.

September 8, 2011 at 1:15 pm |

Theodore Mann

Klytus - some of us are thinking at a level far above anything you have ever remotely fathomed! This is important.

September 8, 2011 at 4:13 pm |

graymatter

Where did god come from? So far, no one can answer that question.The trite answer that she always was and always will be is not a answer – it's a cop out. Each religion has a different creation myth. In America some folks want to teach creationism along with evolution. I wonder whose creation myth they would like to see taught- Hindu, Shinto, Cherokee? All creation myths should have equal weight. Evolution is not a myth. Evolution is a proven scientific fact. The fact that there is evolution makes me think there might be a divine hand that got it all started. Where She came from still remains a good question, however. And don't ask me to believe in a book that a bunch of angry, misogynist old rabbi's cobbled together either.

September 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

EricM

how do you explain entropy? (where things in the universe are moving from a state of order to a a state of greater and greater disorder). Using this theory there would seem to be an origin when everything was in an orderly state. And what would be the source behind that origin or orderly state?

As far as your statement of explaining God's origin, how can you since He is outside of our dimensional of knowledge? How does a 2 dimensional object describe a 3 dimensional object? It cant's because it only see object in a 2 dimensional fashion.

Where did God come from? Well ponder on this. You belive something came out of nothing thats how we got here. So I guess nothing is a power thing after all. Evolution is not a fact! I have did plenty of research on evoulution. The only scientific evidence you have is adaptation which is not evolution. You have NO evidence of a real species evolving into another species. If evolution were ture we would be finding examples all over the world all the time but, guess what that is why it is still a made up theory because someone was bitter towards God and wanted to find another way out but, let me tell you there is no other way out. Its Jesus Christ or no way! Im not narrow minded its the truth. Thats why everyone hates the bible because people hate the truth but, God only loves you and wants you to turn to him. I love you I just hate satan and the work he has done to this planet. Why want you explain the heart beat at beginning of gestation or explain to me how the eye is so well designed or explain to me of how complex the brain is. This came from nothing? Quit living in a life full of lies and come to know the truth GOD LOVES YOU AND SO DO I!

September 8, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

Roxie -- Louisiana

Where did god(s) come from? Easy, he/she/it was invented by ancient humans to explain what they could not otherwise explain at that time. The "god" of the abrahamic religions came out of a polytheistic system of gods the ancient israelites worshipped until their exile in babalyon where they decided to drop all their other deities and chose their god of war, Yahweh. There are numerous scholarly books written about this mythology and how it evolved and why today certain people cling to such foolish mythology as being real. Science is reliable, it is self corrective and does not operate in absolutes. Science builds on prior knowledge and takes nothing on faith. Science and religions are dyametrically opposed systems of viewing the world/universe.

September 8, 2011 at 2:36 pm |

Jamie

Roxie,

Science is reliable when we can prove something but, the fact of the matter here is evolution. You cannot prove it that is why it is a theory. Your idea about the Bible is totally wrong. Why dont you sit down and read it. The Bible has stood up to everyone that has tried to abolish it and has never been taken out and never will be. The heavens and earth will pass away but, my word will NEVER! Do you think people would have died and risked their lives for a lie? Honestly what did the people that spread christianity have to gain from it on earth? Nothing! They died for Jesus because it was the truth. You do not see noone throwing out the Quran, buddism, or hindiusm. You know why because it is not the truth. People hate the truth thats why they hate God and the bible. Why would a carnal minded man as we are make a bible that said we need to honor God with our mind, heart, and soul and love our neighbor as we do ourselve. Humans ny nature are greedy and selfish so who in their right mind would make this up? People have alot to learn. See the United States was founded upon God. Thats why we prospered and we are the greatest and youngest country to ever be. What has happened now. We took God out of everything and we hare facing his fiery judgement. We need to do this and do that politics to get out of crisis. NO WE NEED TO WORSHIP GOD AND PUT HIM BACK FIRST THEN EVERYTHING WILL BE ALRIGHT. Im sick and tired of everyone throwing out on God. He has done nothign but, love you. I love everyone but, I know the source behind all this and its satan! Please let the Holy Spirit talk to you today and get you out of you jam.

GOD BLESS YOU

September 8, 2011 at 3:51 pm |

Howie

Jamie – You are an idiot. "Do you think people would have died and risked their lives for a lie?" What do you call Nazi Germany? An entire country decided to follow Hitler and his lies, and a lot of them died. Man is often foolish, and the foolish and weak of mind can easily be made to follow a charismatic leader. The bible is basically the first tool of mass control created by leaders who wanted to rule all of humanity. They cleverly realized that if you get people to believe that you speak for the divine, the people would follow you, die for you, sacrifice virgins to you, etc. The bible is a load of crap. Anyone who believes in god is an idiot or mentally ill. I'm surprised you know how to turn on a computer.

September 8, 2011 at 4:59 pm |

MikeGCNY

"There can be only one species that gave rise to Homo erectus, which is our direct ancestor, however." Why is the statement fact? We know there was cohabbitation and inter-species procreation between the neanderthal and cromagnum peoples which can be genetically identified in people today. Horses and Donkeys make mules (and some are not sterile) so why can this kind of hybrid exist and take hold? Can someone who is credentialed answer that?

September 8, 2011 at 1:12 pm |

Capercorn

Because Journalism majors slept through their biology classes. That's why.

September 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

Jon

@Bob

Faith isn't based on evidence. Faith is belief in the absense of evidence. You don't have faith in gravity do you? Of course not. We are experiencing it right now. Faith comes into play when the only piece of "evidence" is a book that is a translation of a translation of a translation. That takes a great amount of faith.

September 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

Jimmy Cracorn

No I have allot of faith in gravity. If I didn't everything I owned would have some sticky thing on the bottom to help hold it to the floor.

September 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm |

Gerry

Oh please, you don't have "faith" in gravity. You trust in the theory of gravity because you have a LIFETIME of evidence that it WORKS. Every day you wake up and walk outside and don't fly off into space. Every day that you see the effects of gravity work like they're supposed to is another notch in the belt of evidence that the theory of gravity is correct. In fact, you've NEVER seen any evidence that would refute the theory of gravity, have you? There is no "faith" involved here at all.

September 8, 2011 at 2:17 pm |

Jamie

Im sorry but, what you dont know is that when you except Jesus Christ you know he is real! How? You can feel the love a warmth from the Holy Spirit! The Bible is translated and translated and translated but, guess what we have 25000 ancient doucments of the new testament and none of the fragments or manuscripts are altered contrary to what I have in my Bible today. Also, from the writings and quotations of our early chruch fathers alone, we can reproduce 99.86% of the new testament alone. The bible is not man made you know why? Because man does not want to believe in a God he wants to beleive in himself, so why would a man write a book about God anyway? Why want you just pick up your bible and read for yourself instead of listening so what everyone else says about it. You know why you dont want to pick it up? Because there is a little voice in the back of your head saying NO dont do it the bible is full of fairy tales. He did that to me too dont worry his name is satan and he is real very real. So i beg you to pick the bible up and read it. Your life will be totally different and you will find the truth!

To GOD BE THE GLORY!

September 8, 2011 at 2:01 pm |

22Cents

Sorry, Jamie, but none of it is unaltered or still in original state. Just read up on the origin of the King James version. Keep reading, say 'The Evolution of God" for example. You'll learn. Keep the faith, of course, but you'll learn.

September 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

brobin

I can't tell if you are joking, or just off your meds. Most of what you feel about Jesus, someone else feels about God X, Y, or Z. You probably reject thousands of other Gods that someone also believed in completely.

I will answer one of your questions.. Why would they invent a God? To control people just like you.

September 8, 2011 at 3:02 pm |

sosofresh

Slow down here... This sounds like something made-up by gays/commies/minorities/abortion clinic doctors. Not being familiar with this, one question immediately comes to my mind... is it possible to shoot "evolution" with a gun? I tend to resort to proportionately excessive violence when faced with something I don't understand and consequently fear.

September 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

LMFAO

Hillarious. You should have added /Obama though.

September 8, 2011 at 2:07 pm |

Chettahe

It is just the nature of religion over the millennia that requires blind and unconditional faith from the followers and uses the fear of the unknown ot capture and take hold of individuals to its folds.
This has happened even before the biblical religions took hold most of the modern world.
As long as the religious do not interfere with the scientific thought and try to impose their interpretation of creation and nature they can have their rituals and their theories to themselves.
Science has it own logical and disciplined way of separating facts from fiction. Sometimes there may be inaccurate interpretations of experiments or observations, but eventually, even after a long period of time, a return to the scientific truth is achieved.
What is disturbing to me is when the interpretations of the religious creation does not coincide with the scientific observations and measurements the hostility of the believers towards science. There are millions out in the world right now who because of their religious teachings do not believe that humans set foot on the moon.

September 8, 2011 at 1:07 pm |

Wzrd1

I have only three words for the good Doctor and his theory.
"Where's the DNA?"
That will tell more than anything else.

September 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

lolwhat

How does it feel to be so utterly clueless about how DNA works?

September 8, 2011 at 1:31 pm |

Wzrd1

Actually, I'm quite conversant on how DNA works.
The samples are of sufficient quality that DNA should be recoverable. Hence, we could map at least part of this creature's genome.
Then, the comparative genetic analysis could begin.
So, I say again, where is the DNA? Take some samples and attempt to extract it.

September 8, 2011 at 1:34 pm |

Anthropologist

Do you have any idea how either DNA or fossilization work. DNA is found in organic matter. Find organic matter and you can extract DNA. Fossils occur when the organic matter (most commonly bone) is replaced by mineral deposits which create an exact mineral replica of the original organic structure. No more organic matter - no DNA. However, fossilization does allow us to study structure, and structure reveals a great deal about the probable original organic sample. You may deduce from my screen name that I actually teach this stuff.

September 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

Lancelot Link

Evolution is a continuous process and always moves in the direction of greater complexity. This is, ironically, some of the best evidence for intelligence in the formation of the universe. That said, biblical explanations of creation are no more relevant today than those of Greek or Egyptian mythology.

September 8, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

Qiox

Evolution does not move towards greater complexity. That false statement is repeated a sickening number of times. Evolution moves towards adaption with the environment, and that can be either a simplification or not. The process does not favor complexity. It's always nice to see evolution defended but please make sure you actually know what you are talking about..

September 8, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

Dave

As well, evolution is not necessarily a continuous process. It can also proceed in large leaps and bounds.

September 8, 2011 at 1:11 pm |

Capercorn

Actually, both situations: Evolution moving towards greater complexity and Evolution only serving survival needs are both loaded metascientific statements. Because according to informational physics, which is currently gaining ground in the theoretical physics popularity contest for what actually occupies the ontological basement, information processing capabilities are the primary drivers of evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 1:12 pm |

Lancelot Link

It is a self-evident truth that organisms have evolved from simple beginnings towards greater complexity. Evolution is not steady but moves forward with fits and starts. There is an ongoing debate about this topic among scientists but I just don't see much evidence of evolution ever going backwards. A cave fish may lose it's sight but is it's genome actually less complex because of these adaptations? After thousands of generations will it's offspring really evolve back into simple invertebrates?

September 8, 2011 at 2:14 pm |

Jeepers

I just skimmed the article. I'm here to read the comments arguing evolution vs. creation. Maybe I should go make some popcorn.

September 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

Klytus Im Bored

Welcome to the show! It has been fairly entertaining so far.

September 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

Norm - not that one

Which was made by god on the third day ........... or was it the forth!?

September 8, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

Fern

That's why i'm here too! look how mad they get. pass the popcorn

September 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

Mike

Yes, evolution is a continuous process, but no, evolution does NOT always move in the direction of increased complexity. Sometimes features are reduced or eliminated altogether, like whale's legs and cave fish eyes. Whatever variation in the population is most expedient at the moment is what gets transmitted to future generations.

September 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

EricM

Lancelot, how do you explain entropy? (where things in the universe are moving from a state of order to a a state of greater and greater disorder). Using this theory there would seem to be an origin when everything was in an orderly state. And what would be the source behind that origin or orderly state?

September 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

Norm - not that one

Order, and disorder, are human concepts.
While the universe is, over an outrageously long period of time, tending toward "simplicity", it is certainly not "disorder".
In the mean time, stars are being created, planets are being created, and human beings born.

September 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

Lancelot Link

The ultimate conflict is not between good and evil but between complexity and entropy. Universes run down, complexity evolves to the point where it can make new ones.

September 8, 2011 at 1:58 pm |

SuperHuman

Evolution is real, I am the next step after man.

September 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

Norm - not that one

Woman?

September 8, 2011 at 1:26 pm |

Oreste Ona

If materialist scientists, are so sure of their theories, why then many times they use these words in their theories: " maybe, probably, etc.? Albert Einstein never used those phrases! On the other hand, if they are so sure about their theory, why not create a human being? Or can they by using their huge understandings, are unable to collect components and create life, a blade of grass, etc? Or say what is our origin and purpose on this Planet?

September 8, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

Lacking Evidence since 14 Billion BCE

Hmmm the Theory of Relativity.

Theory in science is not the same as the layman's use of the word meaning a guess. Theory in science is backed up by evidence.

September 8, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

monstermd

So here's my question in regards to theory and evidence. Would you say that it is a theory that if I leave an ice cube outside in 90 degree heat that it will melt? There is evidence to support this theory. Or would you say that it is a fact since we can verify that claim?

September 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

Lacking Evidence since 14 billion BCE

That would probably be covered in the Theory of Thermal Dynamics and probably some Chem theories.

September 8, 2011 at 5:26 pm |

Correction

You clearly know nothing about science and how theories are developed and tested, and you also know nothing about Albert Einstein.

September 8, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

ekim corcho

Iagree that person knows zip about science and the great mathmatician.... this is really intesting stuff

September 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

Michelle

Your ignorance about the scientific process is astounding. There is NO doubt in the scientific community amongst biologists, paleontologists, and geneticists that humans evolved from earlier ape-like primates. They're only debating WHICH ONE is our direct ancestor (like a "great-grandfather" as opposed to a "great uncle" or "cousin" lineage). When they find fossils, they carefully analyze and discuss the evidence by comparing ALL fossils from a similar era and our known lineage, and tiny details are in dispute... NOT the whole theory. Wrap your head around that before you make a fool of yourself.

September 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

aaron

The bible holds all the answers for those who don't want to ask questions. Ignorance is bliss. Stay in church and don't talk or comment on things that over your head or beyond your small, small mind.

September 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

Norm - not that one

Because, in the search for reality and truth – they have no need, or requirement, to meet standards set by your ignorance.

September 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

AmazedinFL

That's pretty ludicrous. Tracing how humans evolved through the fossil record and creating a human in a lab are obviously entirely different. If what scientists are trying to figure out is the precise lineage of our ancestors, that's irrelevant to and not answered in the least by the exercise of creating a human in a lab anyway.
And in terms of questioning the uncertainty, you need to understand the differences between facts, hypotheses, and theories–just learn the basic definitions of what they are and mean. And if you think about it a little, OF COURSE there's uncertainty. We're talking about putting the pieces of a puzzle together from a very limited fossil record. Most dead bodies decompose into dust in virtually no time at all. For a fossil even to be created takes a very unusual and extremely rare set of circumstances. It's not like the scientists have a time machine so they can go back and view every detail.

September 8, 2011 at 2:25 pm |

The Greek

I too believe in God but why do you think that God created the world as the bible says or anyone believes. Perhaps God did create the world and man using evolution. Certainly, God would not ask us HOW to create us because we did not exist before creation. What we think as accidental may very well be God's process of creation or God's nature. By the way, check out a few youtube videos about quantum physics and you will see that scientists finally discovered that what exists in the empty space between an atom's nucleus and the electrons is not empty space but a place that pure intellligence exists that has more latent/potential power than the entire universal energy matter! So, scientist are getting closer to see that there is "intelligence" in everything that exists and since that intelligence/life ( because it moves and it is alive even in so called l"dead matter") is, well, intelligent, it may have caused or contributed to the so called creation/evolution in its own way.

September 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

Oreste Ona

But, who designed that?

September 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

Emily

*Yawn

September 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

Raven

Simple, because if any part of the Bible is a lie, then the rest of it is useless.

It says God created the earth and man in 6 days and then rested on the 7th.
Either one believes that or he doesn't.
Me personally I fail to believe that all that we see around us today, happened by mere accident when a ball of goop exploded in space. it is mathematically impossible that evolution PRODUCED mankind.
That doesn't mean that we or animals or plants can't be affected by our surroundings.
But random chaos cannot produce rules and laws that we and the universe are governed by.
THAT takes a blueprint. Whether "GOD" is a space alien or a supernatural being remains to be seen, but there is no doubt that he is a excellent engineer.

September 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

Capercorn

Umm... I'm a math major. Your statement that blind forces couldn't result in the origin of mankind is blatantly false. Second, from the perspective of history and theology: St. Augustine dispensed with the Genesis account of creation in the 4th Century because he thought it was silly, and then said that we should be prepared to change our picture of creation if new information emerges.

September 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm |

Jon

Evolution is the only mechanism that can produce life. If there is a god and he used Evolution as his tool, then he must not be very intelligent. Of all the life that has existed on this planet, 99.9% of it is extinct. That does not support the idea of an intelligent designer.

September 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

The Greek

@ Jon..

You assumed that God created species to last.. God did not make that assumption.. obviously.

September 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm |

Ray

Jon – "Evolution is the only mechanism that can produce life."

Life must already exist in order for evolution to occur. Evolution is not the answer to creation.

September 8, 2011 at 6:19 pm |

ChrisCox

So why did the "human family tree" of evolution stop with homo sapiens? My question has nothing to do with Christianity or Atheism. I just want to know we're all here based on evolution, why aren't home sapiens evolving into some other homo order? Why did the chain break at us?

September 8, 2011 at 12:45 pm |

Cedar Rapids

Who said it has?
Modern man has merely been a blip so far in history, far too short a time to see anything major.

September 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

ChrisCox

How in the world are we going to evolve into something else?? We are a blip in the big scheme of things – all we are is dust in the wind as the song goes – but unless humans start breeding with primates how else do you foresee us evolving?

September 8, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

Oreste Ona

But where are all those ape men in the process?. Does anybody see any? Or was it only Tarzan?

September 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm |

Correction

What the heck do you mean stopped? It doesn't stop at all, thousands of years from now humans will again be slightly different through evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

ChrisCox

Then explain how this is going to happen. The scientist have "explained" it with their evolution charts that are splattered all over schools and that chart ends with homo sapiens. If they can explain it up to this point (us) why can't they explain how it's going to play out thousands of years from now?

September 8, 2011 at 12:59 pm |

Qiox

Because they are scientists not psychics! Evolutionary changes are random adaptions to the environment. Nobody can predict the future of a random event. You are asking for the impossible and more importantly, what you are asking is relevant to the study of evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

Qiox

typo, s/b: irrelevant to evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

Lila

Why would they do that? They don't have a crystal ball to figure out the future. I'm not a scientist but theoretically in 100,000 if humans still exist,, our bodies could evolve to resist some diseases, our brains and bodies could change to use technology more efficiently. Can you imagine what technology will be like in 100,000? We would not be the same.

September 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

Michelle

The chart doesn't "end" with Homo sapiens, genius. The chart follows the timeline up to NOW. Genetic variation takes place in populations all the time. If you look at groups of humans who have been isolated from the rest of the world, you'll discover that they've developed their own unique traits within the population. This is part of evolution. The "evolutionary tree" always ends at the PRESENT TIME. We'll add to it as time goes on. How the heck can we know what comes next? That depends on evolutionary pressures.

Would you be ridiculous enough to complain that a historical timeline of political events is bogus because it ends on September 8th, 2011? Of course not! Tomorrow hasn't happened yet! Same thing applies to an evolutionary timeline.

Troll.

September 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

Oreste Ona

But I would like to see PROOF:ape-men. And there aren't any.

On the other hand when something evolves, it disappears. But the jungles are still full of apes. And with all the ADN theory of: "99.9" positive, human beings and apes, cannot reproduce.

September 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

Qiox

Oreste, the apes in the jungles are not the one's we evolved from, it's as simple as that for why they are still around. What evolution tells us is that those apes, and us had a common ancestor millions of years ago. From that common parent millions of years ago several different lines evolved. The human line being one, and the multitude of apes being among the others.

September 8, 2011 at 1:18 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'On the other hand when something evolves, it disappears. But the jungles are still full of apes.'
we did not evolve from apes so what has that argument got to do with it?

September 8, 2011 at 1:20 pm |

DuncanSachs

everything that makes human beings uniquely individual within our species is solely based on our opinions of the world around us. that stated, youre wasting time arguing with people or explaining something to someone while belittling them...youre not being effective...why do you care if someone else knows what you think you know?

September 8, 2011 at 1:29 pm |

Thorne

I once had a biology professor who said that one of the biggest issues creationists have is their insistence that the current "modern" man is the epitome of the evolutionary process rather than just another species along the way. Why does evolution have to have a stopping point ? If you see man worshiping God as being the sole reason for existence you are going to have a very difficult time accepting that maybe man is just another random event.

September 8, 2011 at 1:41 pm |

Lacking Evidence since 14 Billion BCE

comeback in 10 million years and see where we are (if we haven't killed ourselves.)

September 8, 2011 at 12:58 pm |

ChrisCox

You're just making smart-ass comments. When you can give me a serious answer, comment.

September 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

Dave

Also, evolutionary changes happen over vast amounts of time. Not necessarily gradually, but still we are talking 100 Ks to millions of years. Far too long for anyone now living to notice.

September 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

SC

Don't you see the news.... in some places some kids are born attached at head or some kids are born with one more hand or couple of more hands.... now doctors try to correct them by surgery... but million years later maybe that would be the norm.... just one of the many possibilities.

September 8, 2011 at 1:12 pm |

Bill

Evolution continues always. You're just part of the ever changing scenery, dude. If you and your decendants have the right genetic modifications for it you all might have a chance to remain part of the scenery, but possibly in quite different forms over the distant future..

September 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

Howie

You clearly do not understand the science of evolution at all. Evolution does not require one species to breed with another. Rather, within a species there are various diverse traits that not all members share (look at the difference in height and physical strength between current members of the human race as an example). Whichever of these traits is better adapted to a physical environment for survival or breeding tend to get passed on to the next generation. Those traits that are counterproductive to survival or breeding do not get passed on. So, the 'chain' has not broken. We are still evolving. It is just an extremely slow process, and therefore would not be noticed by modern man at this time. Come back in a few million years, and I'm sure the species descended from us will bear little resemblance to the humans of today.

September 8, 2011 at 1:14 pm |

aaron

the average hight of humans has increased by all most 5" over the last 300 years. Evelution of humans that can be charted.

September 8, 2011 at 1:21 pm |

aaron

When was the last time you used your apendex (sorry about spelling) Why would god put a useless organ in our bodies?

September 8, 2011 at 1:33 pm |

Howie

That is actually not evidence of evolution. The increase in height can be completely attributed to better nutrition, especially during childhood.

September 8, 2011 at 4:53 pm |

NYCitizen

Why couldn't God create Man through evolution????

September 8, 2011 at 12:38 pm |

TheTruth72

Becuase He created man in His image. Evolution is a concept which is too unpredictable. If the strongest survives, then by evolution, we happened to be of luck at just some lucky circumstances and ended up turning out like we did today. You may say that nothing is impossible with God (which is true), but even evolution on a macro-scale just doesn't line up if all the facts from the Bible are put together.

September 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'we happened to be of luck at just some lucky circumstances and ended up turning out like we did today'
sounds about right, sorry to kill your idea that we must have some grand purpose for being but really, there isnt.

September 8, 2011 at 12:49 pm |

Howie

There are no 'facts' in the bible, not a single one.

September 8, 2011 at 1:19 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'Howie – There are no 'facts' in the bible, not a single one'
Actually that is not true. There isnt as many as its supporters like to claim but they are there.....place names, rulers etc.

September 8, 2011 at 1:22 pm |

aaron

GOD is a fat, uneployed, hairy american. yep thats how i see him.

September 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

dave

The Bible does not contain facts, it is old Hebrew, Egyptian, and other word of mouth mythology collected by scribes over hundreds of years and condensed into one book. Nowhere does it profess to be a book containing 100% accurate facts.

September 8, 2011 at 1:27 pm |

22Cents

Which image was created first – African, Asian, Swedish, Latino, etc? Either all of them were created at once or man has been evolving. By the way, the bible may have been inspired by God but it wasn't written by him nor does it contain 'facts'. Home come there is no historical written record, beside the scriptures, of Jesus. Wouldn't you think someone busting up temples, walking on water, raising the dead, and loaves of plenty newsworthy?

September 8, 2011 at 2:06 pm |

OppositesAttract

There is no God. God is a human thought, creation. I don't get how there are people out there who solely believe that Man is a creation/vision of God when clearly it is God who is a creation/vision of Man. Face the truth. There is No God. There is only what is here now and what was here. What's real is the evidence from the past, if there are any. Evolution is Real. It just happens at a slower pace compared to the humans puny lives to comprehend. Evolution does not happen overnight, it does not happen in one person's lifetime. It happens over a period of a few million years. We are a direct result of such evolution over millions of years. Just as how there are many species of monkeys/apes coexisting today, we humans are just another species of the animal kingdom that coexist with each them.

September 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

The Greek

What we think as accidental may very well be God's process of creation or God's nature. By the way, check out a few youtube videos about quantum physics and you will see that scientists finally discovered that what exists in the empty space between an atom's nucleus and the electrons is not empty space but a place that pure intellligence exists that has more latent/potential power than the entire universal energy matter! So, scientist are getting closer to see that there is "intelligence" in everything that exists and since that intelligence/life ( because it moves and it is alive even in so called l"dead matter") is, well, intelligent, it may have caused or contributed to the so called creation/evolution in its own way.

September 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'but a place that pure intellligence exists'
and what the heck is 'pure intelligence'?

Well what god are you talking about. Certainly the one in the bible couldn't, it says so.

September 8, 2011 at 12:51 pm |

The Greek

God, by definition, is only one and his job is the creation. That God I am talking about. There is no other.

September 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

The Greek

If you are a lover of knowledge, you should research what "pure intelligence" is. Quantum physicists declare it as a scientific evidence. I claim it as God or closely related to God. In addition, here's is where scientists agree with modern quantum physicists (QP) QP say that there is more power and intelligence in that "void" in the atoms between the electrons an the nucleus than there is in the entire universe. Jesus most likely had tapped that void and declared that ALL POWER IN HEAVEN AND EARTH has been GIVEN to me. QPs found it by mathematics and other scientific methods; Jesus was that intelligence or had direct connection to it (He did not tell us how he got that connection but he did say knock and it shall be oppened and greater works than mine you can do - i.e., miracles)... that is to that total power that scientist claim that exist.

September 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

gerald

He could though I don't believe he did. Micro Evolution is fairly well proven. Macro evolution however is not and that is the difficulty.

September 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

GodPot

Man created God with Evolution. First it was worshiping the sun, moon and stars, then they gave them names like Utu and Nammu, which evolved into Chronos and Zeus, Jesus, Yahweh, Alah, Vishnu etc...

September 8, 2011 at 1:07 pm |

Hal

The universe could very well have evolved this way, and it doesn't bother me if that is what one wants to believe, as long as this belief doesn't dispute the scientific evidence that the universe is billions of years old and life forms have been evolving over hundreds of millions, even over a billion years on earth. There is no proof that all of this was not the result of some grand plan, so if this is your intelligent design, go right ahead.

It becomes a problem when some attempt to assign a particular religion to this grand plan, and gets even worse others take religious writings of thousands of years ago as literal and inerrant, use it to dismiss the today's science and observation that has improved countless fold, and interject this belief as science in public classrooms and in public affairs.

This kind of infusion and confusion of religion vs. science was what set much of the Muslim world back centuries and if allowed to proliferate in America, would do the same, especially at a time we can least afford it.

September 8, 2011 at 1:57 pm |

Willy

After what man has done to the earth . I would say that God or apes should be insulted at the responsibilty for our stupidity that has been thrust upon them.

September 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

Not All Docs Play Golf

True human evolution will eventually manifest the eventual casting off of human's primitive religious beliefs as the human brain becomes more sophisticated. Unfortunatey, a big part of the human gene pool is holding that evolution back.

September 8, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

keith s

What confuses me about people is their huge imagination. We come up with imaginary ideas about life and where we came from, and then put it in a book. However, there are a few that don't have such an extraordinary imagination, and such a blind faith in it. These people are called Scientists. The Scientists prefer the facts about life instead of the fictional books written by poorly educated people in the past. I hope that more people support science and these scientists, and not criticze their work in such a way that is negative. Because, without science we wouldn't know much of anything about ourselves and the universe. We'd all be living in caves craping in holes without science just like our ancestor the Australopithecus.

September 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

gerald

What's funny about your post is that this article actually proves the scientists don't have all the facts and their books are changing all the time. Did you read the article?

September 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

keith s

I was responding to what some people were saying about science, Mr. Engineer. Next time my car breaks down I will ask for your opinion. The main problem is there are not enough people out there doing the research or funding it. Too many closed minded negative people in this world, it's sad. I will go ahead and say there is no harmony between science and religion. There is only science and math, religion is for dumb people. It's a sad, sad world. One day maybe god will come down from heaven and explain this world to us. Let us pray brother.

September 8, 2011 at 2:21 pm |

gerald

And don't misconstrue what I wrote to mean I am against science. I love science and am an engineer who's life benefits greatly from it. I am not a strict creationist and believe the final answer in all of this melds religion and science in perfect harmony.

September 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

Mike

So, if I have this correct...you don't like imaginary things in books? Good, becausen your "science" books have changed yearly and are consistently without fail, proven to be imaginary. Re-read the article above "perhaps, could be, suggest, seem to have been..." That doesn't sound like definitive language. Please enlighten me on these "facts about life" that scientists have that have PROVEN evolution to be true. And if you're referring to the Bible as fictional and written by poorly educated people, try this on for size: http://images.acswebnetworks.com/1/934/Historicity_of_Bible.pdf

You hope people don't criticize scientists work in such a way as being negative. Re-read your own post...you're not even following your own rules when criticizing non-evolutionsts (aka Creationists).

How about the origin of science? "To the popular mind, science is completely inimical to religion: science embraces facts and evidence while religion professes blind faith. Like many simplistic popular notions, this view is mistaken. Modern science is not only compatible with Christianity, it in fact finds its origins in Christianity. This is not to say that the Bible is a science textbook that contains raw scientific truths, as some evangelical Christians would have us believe. The Christian faith contains deeper truths– truths with philosophical consequences that make conceivable the mind's exploration of nature: man's place in God's creation, who God is and how he freely created a cosmos. " http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html

Do yourself a favor...read a history book, a text book, or even the definition of science which is "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world". Evolution is a theory...not science.

September 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

keith s

When god comes down from heaven and throws all the sinners in hell then you can speak. Until then, go stand in traffic and see if god saves you. Oh, please let me know whenever someone proves the bible or any other religious book is true and factual. I hope that sometime in your life we finally discover these missing links and then you can go **** yourself.

September 8, 2011 at 2:00 pm |

keiths

it makes me sick how closed minded and dumb you sound. I hope one day people like you get what you want, I hope God comes down from heaven and takes you away. Oh, yeah I forgot. God has never come down from heaven ever and never will. If anyone is coming out of the sky its aliens. And trust me they dont want your closed minded stupid butt, unless its for probing.

September 10, 2011 at 10:59 am |

truthman

The fact remains.
There has never been found a fossil that is half human and half ape.

Every fossil thats ever been found is either 100% human or 100% ape.
The age of bones is totally exagerated. The only thing that can be accurately aged is a tree, count the rings, and the oldest tree is 5000 years anywhere you look. This totally jives with the Bible

September 8, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

Laugh

Agreed!!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 12:33 pm |

Lacking Evidence since 14 Billion BCE

*facepalm*

September 8, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

Debbie

That's not how evolution works, and you should learn a little about it. Evolution is a continuum. Each generation may contain variations, but will look a lot like the one before it and the one after it. It's only between large numbers of generations that you see big differences. I suggest you read a book called "The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution" if you don't believe there is any. It's right in front of you. You just have to open your eyes.

September 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm |

whiteoak

Excellent book; currently reading it!

September 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

Ike

I guess that explains the platypus and the bat.

September 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

Lila

You are asking uneducated close minded people to read, good luck with that!

September 8, 2011 at 12:52 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'Every fossil thats ever been found is either 100% human or 100% ape.'
but thats complete nonsense, heck this very article talks about such things......... mostly human-like ankle joint, but the heel bone is mostly ape-like

September 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm |

Ike

I'm sorry but a chimp skull is human-like compared to a cat skull and cat skull is human-like compared to an armadillo skull. Pig blood has the closest resemblance to human blood, but that doesn't make it, according to evolutionist, our ancestor. The Lucy skeleton is older than this skeleton, but supposedly has more advanced feet features.

September 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

Aezel

Evolution doesn't even say we come from apes. You're either a poe or you are so uneducated that you don't know this.

September 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

Jebediah Knownothing

Look at that fossil picture at the top of the page. It ain't 100% human. It aint 100% ape. That inconvenient fact remains eh?

September 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

TheTruth72

If I bound your head up at birth and then years later you die, people would say the same thing about you. But you have 100% human DNA. Or at least I think/hope you do. Now do you see how scientists do their jobs?

September 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'Now do you see how scientists do their jobs?'
no, but i see how you do yours. yeah but...yeah but...yeah but.
If you bound his head? seriously?

September 8, 2011 at 12:53 pm |

Lila

Every fossil is either 100% human or 100% ape? what a ridiculous comment.

September 8, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

Bill

Really, what other facts do you deny so that you can continue to maintain your shallow view of reality? Have an open mind. You'll find that reason, thinking, and truthfully attempting to understand will lead you to a much more amazed appreciation of life and God.

September 8, 2011 at 12:53 pm |

Qiox

Ignorance is not knowledge. Professing a complete lack of any knowledge of science is not a basis for forming an opinion. You should be ashamed of yourself for being so proud of your ignorance.

September 8, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

clearfog

I once had a discussion with a fundamentalist who happened to be a dentist. I pointed out that much of the evidence for evolution was based on teeth. I was hoping for an "aha" moment of lucidity. What I got was the statement: "God put that evidence on Earth to test our faith." Well . . . you can't argue with that.

September 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

Howie

First off, did you read the article? It clearly says that this species had some traits of Apes, and some traits of Humans. There is your half man half ape. Second, have you heard of nuclear isotopes? Radio carbon dating? We can nail down with very good accuracy the ages of all sorts of things based on the atomic weight and other variables that change over time. We have conclusively proved various rocks to be Billions of years old. The bible is a load of horse $hit.

September 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

willie b

Answer me this; If god knows what was / is / will be, etc, et al...HOW DID HE NOT KNOW THE VERY FIRST PEOPLE 'HE' MADE – would SCREW UP?!? Talking snakes? Love ME more or I'll make Abraham kill his son! I'll flood the world and KILL, KILL, KILL!

What an ass!

And, the story of Jesus is INHERENTLY FLAWED; If Jesus KNOWS he will 'come back from the dead' then it is not really the same act of faith / sacrifice that WE would endure.

Not to mention God siding w/ King David, even when he screws around w/ a top general's wife. Wars of aggression, turning folks into pillars of salt...etc. And this is the infinite being of infinite intelligence which created this universe – and he's concerned about someone worshipping a gold cow INSTEAD OF ~HIM~!?!?

And strange, as the age of Science and observable evidence has arrived – the 'miracles' of the bible have disappeared proportionally!

September 8, 2011 at 1:45 pm |

gerald

I thought they had it all figured out already. Question what will come after humans in the evolutionary chain? Haven't we been around long enough now that there should have evolved a species from humans?

September 8, 2011 at 12:29 pm |

Laugh

EXACTLY!!!!!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 12:31 pm |

truthman

I like that one Gerald

September 8, 2011 at 12:33 pm |

Lacking Evidence since 14 Billion BCE

Populations evolve, we mix so much now that we're not going to evolve into two separate species.

September 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

lol

2000 years? those evolutions happened in hundreds of thousands of years. maybe in roughly 98000 years you can say that

September 8, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

Thorne

See... now you're asking the fundies to do math... you are setting yourself up for epic failure. LOL 2,000 vs 200,000 it's just a few zeros man.. just a few zeros.

September 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

Debbie

See, the difference between religion and science is that science does not claim to have all the answers. It's willing to regroup and reassess as new information is available. With more and more fossils being unearthed and more and more information about DNA and sequencing, the gaps are being filled faster than you can say "God did it."

September 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

whiteoak

Well-stated, Debbie!

September 8, 2011 at 12:42 pm |

EricM

Debbie, your statement is incorrect in that neither side claims to have "all the answers". There are things in this universe that can only be investigates to a certain point when "faith" needs to take over. Don't believe me? Explain the origins of the universe? And then where did that come from? And then where did that come from? It is a circular reason that never ends and that just leaves a person with their own beliefs from the information that is available to them.

September 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm |

Qiox

EricM, there's your problem. When you don't have facts you declare that it now time to just make stuff up. Sane people instead have no fear of saying, "I don't know right now, so I'm going to wait until we do know."

September 8, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

gerald

I don't claim to have all the answers either and there is no dichomtomy between true science and true religion. Don't mistake me for a strict creationist as I am not. I highly value science and good science and good religion are compatible. I read lots of people on these boards who think that science has it all figured out so don't give me that line about the difference.

September 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

gerald

Debbie, God did it ALL. What we know from science and what we don't know.

September 8, 2011 at 1:19 pm |

gerald

Qiox,

We don't make stuff up about what we don't know in science. At least not all of us. Stop broad brushing. True religion is quite open to scientific discovery. False science in fact many times makes things up as well. This very article is proof that is what has been done up to this point and in fact this article may be just making things up. Sure they look at some evidence and based on a THEORY of evolution make claims about the evolution of man but none of it is proven and many on this board will act as if it is. By the way macro evolution is not against my Christian religious beliefs. I just don't happen to believe it to be true from a scientific look at the evidence. I have a geology degree by the way so I have done more looking than the average person.

September 8, 2011 at 1:23 pm |

Aezel

I can't decide if your total lack of education about how evolution works, or your stupidly uneducated posit about how humans should have evolved by now paints you as more of an idiot.

September 8, 2011 at 12:43 pm |

Sparky101

The reason you can't decide is because of your total lack of education. When God said "brains" you thought he said trains and you asked for a "slow one." It has served you well, as you just don't get it and never will. You are an idiot, and so ugly that when you were born the doctor smacked you in the face.

September 10, 2011 at 10:58 pm |

Reginald

There has been no major factors to cause our species to have to evolve, and even if there was, evolutionary change happens over millions and millions of years, not decades and centuries. On a geological scale, humans have only existed for a tiny little speck in time on Earth. People who just expect to see evolutionary change in a short matter of years clearly have not researched and have no idea how evolution works. That is all.

September 8, 2011 at 12:54 pm |

InFormed99

The rise of the Machines...

September 8, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

Howie

Modern man has only been around for about 200,000 years. That is a pretty short time for evolution. Even so, look at the differences between races. We all come from the same original stock, but have evolved in slightly different directions based on the environments our ancestors lived in.

September 8, 2011 at 1:28 pm |

gerald

lol,

Your name is appropriate. Evolution claims that man has been around sufficiently long (hundreds of thousands of years) for evolution to have happened.

September 8, 2011 at 1:39 pm |

22Cents

No, that won't occur until the eighth day.

September 8, 2011 at 2:16 pm |

panda5

That's not the way it works. There is no specific time frame for any sort of evolution to occur. Evolution is a very slow process. Take a moment to research a concept you don't understand so that you can properly arm a defense of your point of view.

September 8, 2011 at 2:22 pm |

keiths

Have you ever heard of the species Neanderthal? They were human like people very similar to us. The Neanderthal even buried there dead. They were around 65 thosand years before us. I wonder how they came about? Scientist say, we may have killed them off whenever we were starting take over this planet. Where does the bible mention them? oh, there was no bible then, maybe god was on vacation. Wake up you religous fools!

September 9, 2011 at 10:28 am |

Paul

fir of all, to the morons who believe ignorance is the future: God is omniscient ... meaning he/she (who said god has male genitalia?) knows everything. So, then explain me why do you think ignorance should be the way to go? Wouldn't God want you to be smarter?
Moreover, scientist theorize that at some point the universe was create in an instant from nothing. Science says so ... If that is not creationist and godly enough ... then you all must really be morons. Science is totally supportive of the creation of the Universe by some unknown event ... they just don't call it God, but that's exactly what they are saying, in scientific terms of course.
Finally .. you moronic religious idiots ... if it wasn't for science and technology, you wouldn't be able to feed yourselves, so now start kissing science's a$$ because your God will not do a thing to feed and will let you die in your sh***t

September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

Laugh

LOL!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 12:29 pm |

gerald

True science and true religion are compatible. However we must not assume that either is always right in there perception what what is true. This article proves that science has it's flaws. So does strict creationism, i.e. 6 days in my view.

September 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm |

EricM

Gerald, your comment is probably the most intelligent comment that I have read on here. Thanks for posting.

September 8, 2011 at 12:57 pm |

Laugh

2 Million years old huh?? LOL!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!! LOL!!!!!!

September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

Cedar Rapids

I tried to see the humour but I can't see it.

September 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

Kenny of Salt

closer examination of the fossils reveals that these homonids used to spend their time calling each other names on message boards

September 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

Not All Docs Play Golf

Not only that, but Lucy was a victim of identity theft.

September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

Ike

Layer strata dating and sediment dating methods are a mess due to the inconsitencies of the earth. Earthquakes, upheavels, ice ages, flooding, etc. have all changed the depth of what things are found. Supposedly older fossils have been in later stratas and newer fossils in older stratus. Also the rate of deposits and enviroment change constantly. Stalagmites have been found in basements that should have taken thousand of years to form from thier present water trickle, so the water at one time must have dripped faster. Also all dating carbon, etc. methods are subject to the changes in the enviroment and contamination. There is a case of a petrified leg of a human found in a cowboy boot. Judging the find on the minerals in the petrification the leg would be many thousands of years old, but because the boot is a couple of hundred, the date of the fossil is back graded.

September 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

Sybaris

You do know the Creation Museum and CARM are based on junk science.

September 8, 2011 at 12:23 pm |

Not All Docs Play Golf

Funny how some people are skeptical of science but readily believe that a guy named Jonah spent 3 days in the belly of a whale.

Wow. All of that is completely false and inaccurate. Where did you get this?

September 8, 2011 at 12:36 pm |

being frank

FYI- no proof of modern mans evolution. Bones and muscle structure not even close to past humanoids.
Modern man bones date back less than 18,000 yrs. Lucy is not even close to modern man. We are a new and improved edition by our grand creators, who are not happy with our free will-I imagine. I expect a revision is going to come in the not too distant future. In the end this archeologist says we will be closer to human robots. Just explain the 5 races and differences in bone, muscle and color=red white black tan and yellow. Similar but different! And your going to say it was evolution=prove it!
Enjoy life today for tomorrow my not be as nice.

September 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

Mike

being Frank-

Look at the DNA! We're all nearly exactly the same, color differences or not!

September 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

Troy

Evolution has already been proven in the laboratory. Get OUT OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

September 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

Sybaris

You obviously never took or failed biology in college

September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

Akira

What kind of anti-intellectual drivel is this?

September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

No gods

If you hold your hands on your ears and shut your eyes as tight as you can while screaming at the top of your lungs "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" that might work as well as just being ignorant.

September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

whiteoak

Variations in the physical characteristics of modern humans serve as excellent examples for the outcome of evolutionary processes. They represent adaptations that have given individuals an advantage in terms of survival and reproductive success, which allows those individuals to then pass their genes (with the code for advantageous traits) to offspring.

We have a better understanding of how evolution works than we do for how gravity works. The body of tangible, measurable evidence is enormous and the process is observable. Evolution explains so much of our living world, and our understanding becomes more refined as new evidence emerges. The article did an excellent job of interpreting some of this new evidence for the public.

September 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

reACTIONary

being Frank = being Ignorant

September 8, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

keith s

Whenever god comes down from heaven and throws all the sinners into hell then you may speak. For now, why dont you go stand in traffic and see what god does.

September 8, 2011 at 1:48 pm |

Bestoink Dooley

OH, so now it's "grand creators" in your versions. Creators being plural. That's a deviation from the typical line of the one magic man. Ha Ha. The foolishness never ends.

September 12, 2011 at 10:52 am |

John

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus, 341 BC, Samos – 270 BC, Athens

September 8, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

Ike

The problem with this statement is that it leaves us out of the equation. God allows us to do what we want and largely what we want is evil. God allows us to choose what we want to do. Evil isn't some force, it is what we do. Man has a corner on this. Animals don't treat each other so cruelly.
I assume you had a father. Did he control you and make you what you are today and make you do good things and make you do bad things? But you still call him father. How weird is that.

September 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

Anon

Do our father's claim to be all powerful and all knowing? Mine didn't. So it wasn't in the expectations to be able to control our behavior completely.

Ike, think of it this way, you go to a Burger King and order. Do you get the Whopper? Chicken Sandwich? Double Cheeseburger? Meal or Not? Coke or Diet? Fries or Onion Rings? You make a choice based on what they have available, you don't (because they don't carry it) order an 8 oz Filet Mignon or a duck breast in a cherry reduction sauce. You still had to make a choice even though not everything you could imagine is available.

An all-powerful deity, if all good, could have defined our ability down to only good or neutral choices or great and good choices for all of us and our fellow creatures.

I do agree with you that evil is completely in our corner, as is good. There are no supernatural entities pulling our strings. There is only us and how we treat each other.

September 8, 2011 at 1:10 pm |

Jodeo

John wrote:

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

-Epicurus, 341 BC, Samos – 270 BC, Athens

ANSWER: God is not only willing to and able to, He does so according to His plans - which may disagree with your expectations. The Son of God, Jesus Christ, was beaten 40 times with a scourge then nailed to a cross with spikes and left to die. He knows about evil, pain, suffering and death FIRST HAND. And yet he did this in order to deal with evil, pain, suffering and death once and for all. Christ is risen, his tomb remains empty, and the promise of his return to redeem those who have chosen him and judge all evil for eternity is certain.

September 8, 2011 at 12:25 pm |

Akira

God came to Earth as a man. He later sacrificed himself, to himself, to appease himself, to save humanity... from himself.

September 8, 2011 at 12:30 pm |

Navy Fly-boy

Wendy5: you are a real charmer... so smart too!

September 8, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

Common Sense

And these skeletons are no where near human.True modern human traits didn't show up till Homo Neanderthal many of which are to be found in modern humans today

September 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

sardukar

According to the bible R. Perry's great grandfather was a Neanderthal...it shows.

September 8, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

Ike

If you look at most skeletons of early primates there are a few complete bones and the rest are fill-ins as to the interpretors imagination. Lucy is one of the more complete fossils at 40% and yet she bears all of the markings of present day apes, except for a knee bone which was found many feet down and 1.6 miles away from the Lucy site. Also her hip bone would not allow for walking upright, even if the knee bone pointed in that direction.
"Australopithecus sediba's skull shows a cranial capacity of 420 cubic centimeters, whereas a chimpanzee's is about 380 cubic centimeters. Homo erectus is about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, and its cranial capacity would be a whopping 900 cubic centimeters." So its brain size is about 40 cc larger than a chimps, but 480 less than man's. So it was a monkey with a slightly larger brain size, still nowhere close to humans.
"human-like, ape-like"
Also the much older Lucy skeleton had a "more advanced heel" than this fossil and was bigger as well, so we have reverse evolution going on here.
Or maybe the scientist don't have a clue.

September 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

James M. Brundage-Neill

Ike, the fossils "are" the "clues"; and, don't forget that it is "imagination" that has advanced mankind from out of the slime.

September 8, 2011 at 12:21 pm |

Ike

Clues? Like if the glove don't fit, you must acquit. Unfortunately "clues" are found all of the time that make sense and point in all different directions. So it is "imagination that has advanced mankind from out of the slime". Sounds like God and Ihere thought evolution advanced mankind out of the slime.

September 8, 2011 at 12:29 pm |

steve samples

I am imagining an Omnipotent Creator right now....Oh, we are only able to imagine intellectually and you are the judge of intellect. Scientists imagination is part of the process, but mine as a creationist is just stupid. God with people like you in the world i sure hope we evolve pretty quick.

September 8, 2011 at 2:02 pm |

Jen

I'm surprised to see two dogs traipsing through world heritage (active) fossil sites - especially the cave (last pic).

September 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

Bubba

This can't be true since the world is only 2000 years old. If you don't believe me ask Rick Perry.

September 8, 2011 at 11:54 am |

wendy5

yea well the dinosaurs evolved to; into extinction so who cares; we are born to die so who cares what some dumb scientists therorise about, makes no difference; we are born alone and we die alone; i'm going to be cremated placed in a can and buried at the most beautiful spot; so these idiots cant disturb and disect me just gross how they have no respect for the dead;

September 8, 2011 at 11:49 am |

realtime

"yea well the dinosaurs evolved to; into extinction so who cares..."

next time you're outside and see those critters flying around outside you can say to yourself, "my, they are remarkably spry for an extinct order of animals"

September 8, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

whiteoak

@realtime: Good one! 🙂

September 8, 2011 at 12:13 pm |

Wendy5isSilly

Probably the most ignorant statement I have ever read! Perhaps you should go be alone now...

September 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

whiteoak

...in her can of smug ignorance.

September 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm |

Mosihasteen

I'm having a big lavish funeral with everyone I've ever known invited. there will be jokes told during the eulogy by professional comedians and a grand buffet after the service. I will be buried in prime place in the cemetary. And bouncing the check to the undertaker!

September 8, 2011 at 12:04 pm |

RM13

I guess it's comforting to rationalize one's own ignorance to the point of celebrating it.....seems to be all the rage in politics today.

September 8, 2011 at 12:12 pm |

The Greek

Wendy, I too believe in God but why do you think that God created the world as the bible says or anyone believes. Perhaps God did create the world and man using evolution. Certainly, God would not ask us HOW to create us because we did not exist before creation. What we think as accidental may very well be God's process of creation or God's nature. By the way, check out a few youtube videos about quantum physics and you will see that scientists finally discovered that what exists in the empty space between an atom's nucleus and the electrons is not empty space but a place that pure intellligence exists that has more latent/potential power than the entire universal energy matter! So, scientist are getting closer to see that there is "intelligence" in everything that exists and since that intelligence/life ( because it moves and it is alive even in so called l"dead matter") is, well, intelligent, it may have caused or contributed to the so called creation/evolution in its own way.

September 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

Howie

Unfortunately a great many people are as thoroughly ignorant as wendy5. That is truly what is wrong with the world today. People like her are why we have things like The Real Housewives, Celebrity obsession, and the inability to innovate and produce new products to drive a growing economy. Unless her kind can find a way to quietly go extinct, I fear that we will be the end of evolution because we are not smart enough to survive much longer. Wendy – please do the human race a favor and DO NOT REPRODUCE!

September 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm |

Sparky101

That is true Howie, and you are proof of it.

September 10, 2011 at 11:00 pm |

T.S

Many atheists, view science through the lens of materialism—a philosophy that assumes purely material
causes for the origin of life. “That materialism is absolute, for they cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door, so materialists embrace the only alternative they have—evolution. Religious people too may have preconceptions that distort their attitude toward science. For instance, some creationists cling to the erroneous notion that God formed the world
in six literal days a few thousand years ago. Having made that prior commitment, they try to force the evidence to fit their extremely literal interpretation of the Bible. People who have such extreme interpretations of both the Bible and science are left without satisfying answers when they try to seek evidence for their faith.

September 8, 2011 at 11:40 am |

Aezel

"That materialism is absolute, for they cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door"

That is because there is ZERO evidence for it. Scientists don't make shit up just to satisfy your need to get a "divine foot in the door" and make people feel better. They are trying to understand how things ACTUALLY work, which doesn't include throwing up their hands and saying "GOD MUSTA DUNNIT!" every time they encounter a new puzzle to solve.

September 8, 2011 at 11:48 am |

Common Sense

A the iron laws of science point to some higher being comtroling them or they wouldn't be laws at all.

September 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

Aezel

@Common Sense

So basically, you have just chosen to lie. No scientist anywhere that is held in high regard in their field of science agrees with you. Oh but, your creatard buddies and your pastor must have told you that, and they are better at interpreting scientific evidence than Nobel Prize winning physicists and biologists right? Try going and reading a book that isn't full of fairy tales.

September 8, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

sumday

Scientist absolute make things up and that is why we have so many failed or changing theories from them. Science has always yelled about objective testing, but the more we learn about quantum physics the more it is pointing to a need for subjective testing, but if scientist were to admit or embrace subjective testing over objective testing (which quantum physics suggest) then that would like letting the “divine foot in the door” something that they do not want at all (guess they really aren’t all that objective after all). For example in quantum testing it has been shown that many of the tests REQUIRE an observer for the test. IE they run an objective test expecting 1 result, but the test show multiple simultaneous results which would be impossible, but once a human LOOKS at the test it converges to 1 result. At the subatomic level things exist in many possibilities all at once and it is not until something is observed that the wave function collapses to 1 observable wave function, so the question is how do these subatomic particles know they are being observed and why/how could observation alone affect the wave function? This requires/demands subjective over objective testing seeing how every observation changes things slightly, but that lets in the divine foot in the door so few in the scientific community is willing to embrace such testing.

September 8, 2011 at 12:17 pm |

Mosihasteen

It is common knowledge that of all the theories expressed and currently being developed, only about 50% will be proven correct over time for this is what current research tells us. Half of all the self agrandizing academians' assertions are fake.

Meaning: 50% of anything 'science' (biological) claims to be true beyond question is in fact, fake.

@T.S. I think you mean Naturalism, not Materialism. Being an atheist has nothing to do with faith. It has to do with evidence, or lack of evidence, that provides no support for any kind of supernatural being. If natural processes can explain a certain phenomena or claim, why do certain people still feel a need to invoke a supernatural force? They do this mainly because it fits their world view and they are not intellectually honest. People should be open to evidence, use of the scientific method, logic, and reason, not old superstitions, myths, and outright lying.

September 8, 2011 at 11:57 am |

MrAnonymous

RealityCheck: You said "why do certain people still feel a need to invoke a supernatural force? They do this mainly because it fits their world view and they are not intellectually honest. " The same could be said for those who dismiss religion in favor of science. Is one really "right" or "wrong"? The thing that many people do not understand is that science and religion answer different questions. Science attempts to answer questions about how things work or why things work the way they do. Religion tries to answer the question of why we are here, what purpose we and all living things serve. Science cannot answer those questions any more than religion can answer how things work. Until people understand that science and religion answer different questions, and accept that both have a purpose in people's lives, we'll always have these disputes on which one is "right."

September 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

Jean

To MrAnonymous: The arguments go on because either there is a supernatural power out there, or there isn't. Both can not be true. If there isn't such a power watching and judging us, that would be useful to know since humans throughout history have spent enormous time, energy, and resources worshiping many versions of such a power. Think what other good things could have been done with the resources spent this way. Alternatively, if there is evidence or some logical support for such a power, that would be good to know as well, especially if we could find a way to finally confirm what rules and behavior that power really wanted us to observe. Then maybe so many human lives wouldn't be lost in religious wars and persecutions.

September 8, 2011 at 12:44 pm |

MrAnonymous

Jean–You're right, there either is a supernatural power or there isn't. The problem is, we can't know either way. No one can prove or disprove the existence of such a power. So, why argue the point? Those that believe in such a power will believe it no matter what anyone else says. That's the nature of faith. They don't need or want evidence to support or deny their beliefs. They just trust that it is so. Those that don't believe in such a power won't ever believe unless somehow there is evidence to support it. And that will never happen. The point I was trying to make is that way too many people think that science can and will answer every question out there eventually. And that's not the case. It can't answer whether there is or isn't a "supernatural power," "intelligent designer," etc. and it can't answer whether life has a purpose or what that purpose might be. Religion answers those questions sufficiently for those that practice it. They provide answers to different questions, solutions to different problems, so why try to say that one is wrong and the other is right? I mean, would you use a band-aid to treat a broken arm? No. You wouldn't consider it. Because a band-aid solves a certain set of uses and broken bones isn't one of them. Same with science and religion. They each have a use, but they're used for different things.

September 8, 2011 at 2:43 pm |

Brian

The motive for your entire post was to try and convince people your smart. Guess what? your not!

September 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

David

It comes down to scientific fact or "faith" in a myth. Stop acting like a bunch of natives watching a magic show.

September 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

Chris R

Something to keep in mind is that science explains how something happened and can even explain the mechanics of why it happened the way that it did. What it can't do is explain things like; Why are we here at all? What role do we have in the universe? What purpose do we have? What was the primary motivator behind what we see?

In other words, science can't explain the metaphysical and since God is the ultimate metaphysical question science really has no bearing on it. What this means is that *anyone* can accept the undeniable truth of evolution while also accepting that God exists. The ideas are *not* incompatible in anyway. The only people who feel they are incompatible are the zealots on either side.

September 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

MrAnonymous

Well said. Bravo–someone that gets it!

September 8, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

Howie

What kind of arrogance makes you think there is a 'why we are here', a 'what our purpose is' or any of that other BS? We are here because of random chance and physical laws. We have no purpose other than what we give ourselves. So, to your metaphysical arguments, we are god – we are the only force that is capable of giving us purpose.

September 8, 2011 at 1:44 pm |

MrAnonymous

Howie–What kind of arrogance makes you think there ISN'T a reason why we are here?

Goes both ways. Some people would like to believe they are here for a reason. Some don't give a sh.... Whichever works for you, great. Like I said before, and like what Chris said, science and religion answer different questions and neither is "right." If you don't care to ask about your purpose in life (or believe that you make your own purpose), cool. Others don't feel the same, and it's still arrogance for you to say they're wrong to think that way.

September 8, 2011 at 2:20 pm |

cja

The problem is that so many people don't understand that science does not require "belief". I think because of the poor way science is taught in schools as just a bunch of fact you must memorize and accept. No, it's not like that. It is 180 degree opposite. In order for the theory to be in the realm of science it must do two things (1) make predictions that are observed and (2) be "falsifiable", that is have the possibility of being proved wrong. From this, we see that science need not be based on materialism It can make theories about processes and relationships and other abstractions, as long as the theory is predictive and falsifiable. If those conditions don't hold then it is in the realm of philosophy or religion. Conflicts arise because people forget all of this

September 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

Chris R

Science requires belief but it doesn't require unfounded faith. There is a difference between the two. Belief is malleable and can change to meet the evidence. Faith is unchanging in spite of evidence to the contrary. For example – I believe in evolution because of the evidence that has been presented. I know it is not completely but I believe that the holes will be filled in. I believe that the basic framework makes sense. There are many facts to support evolution but belief is what allows us to accept a theory without complete evidence.

I have faith that God exists. I have no evidence for the existence of God but I have unfounded faith in the truth of God.

Belief != faith.

September 8, 2011 at 1:06 pm |

Mike

I believe in evolution AND God. I don't understand those who believe in God but refuse to even entertain the possibility of evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 12:27 pm |

Jack

Typical evolution being crammed down the ignorants necks. 2.6 million years ago this, and 200,000 years ago that. Where they there? Dating methods are only good up to so many years and then they become unverifiable.

September 8, 2011 at 11:37 am |

clearfog

Carbon 14. Well understood. Verifiable.

September 8, 2011 at 11:41 am |

Jack

So you're assuming that radiocarbon in the atmosphere has always been consistent? Doesn't that seem to be anti-evolutionary thinking...

September 8, 2011 at 11:50 am |

Aezel

Jack, yeah HERP DERP, you're a genius! I bet none of the other thousands of scientists who peer reviewed the technique, nor the Nobel Prize committee that awarded Willard Libby the Nobel Prize for his work EVER thought to question how verifiable the dating method was. You and whatever idiot religious fool told you this bulls**t must be THE FIRST PEOPLE EVER to think of how we know radiocarbon was consistent.

/sarcasm off

September 8, 2011 at 11:55 am |

True christianity

Carbon 14 is only verifiable as far as recorded history goes.

September 8, 2011 at 11:55 am |

clearfog

True Christianity. No, not even close. Carbon 14 testing has a range of error more than the length of recorded human history. You do not have even an inkling of how the test works. Carbon 14 is an isotope. When a living thing dies, its uptake of all Carbon ceases. The rate of decay is well understood in terms of half life. Dates such as hundreds of thousands of years can be ascertained with a margin of error of a few percentage points. Recorded human history has nothing to do with the methodology.

September 8, 2011 at 12:01 pm |

Talgrath

@jack First, we don't know for certain that radioactivity in our atmosphere (used for Carbon-14 dating) is accurate, but it's highly unlikely from all we know that it has changed drastically in the past 50,000 years that it is relevant. Now, you may be saying "Aha! 50,000 years is all it is accurate to, well then scientists don't know!" but you see there are other radioactive isotopes to use. In this case Potassium-Argon dating was likely used which is based on the radioactivity of the fossil or the surrounding rocks; http://www.answers.com/topic/potassium-argon-dating has further information on Potassium-Argon dating and Argon40-Argon39 corrections. Educate yourself, please.

September 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

thes33k3r

I would waste a lot of time explaining to you what is wrong with your comment but I noticed that you are an idiot. Read a book.

September 8, 2011 at 11:54 am |

Bob

Carbon-14 dating has a range of much less than 2.6 million years - as I remember, tens of thousands. And, like all forms of dating, it is based on assumptions of unknown accuracy.

September 8, 2011 at 11:54 am |

Aezel

You are correct, carbon dating doesn't go back to 2.6 million years. However, in it's effective range, it has been proven to be quite accurate.

September 8, 2011 at 11:57 am |

darkstar

You're a moron. Radiometric dating is as precise as any time measurement humans have. Just because you choose to remain ignorant doesn't mean the rest of the world is going to. Go hide in a cave and pray to your imaginary sky fairy.

September 8, 2011 at 11:56 am |

Chris

It is funny how you mention "dating methods" and then don't actually name any. The dating method would of course be reliant on what is found in the environment surrounding the find, the applicable date range, etc. Some methods are highly reliable. Hence the general names of the methods used : absolute or relative.

They don't actually mention the dating methods used in this article, so how could you possible know how accurate they are?

September 8, 2011 at 11:58 am |

Chris

I stand corrected, Jack. I see Carbon 14 has been chosen as the "target". This method is not even applicable to something of this age. K-Ar would seem to be a possible choice. Please educate yourself before making comments like this. Jeez!

September 8, 2011 at 12:02 pm |

Anthropologist

It's true that Carbon-14 is only accurate to within about 50,000 years. However, fluorine-argon, radiometric, isotope analysis, and numerous other (verified) dating methods extend back several million years.

September 8, 2011 at 3:05 pm |

o3man

I graduated from college with a BS in science. I will tell you that most scientists are liars, just like a used car sales man. He knows the car has a bad tranny and a bad engine. However, he claims he must lie to sell cars.

For example, in the 50's scientists did claim that tobacco did not cause cancer. Big companies gave them money. They say what they are paid to say.

Right now, scientists say that cell phones do not cause cancer. Who is funding their research – try to guess. They are liars and you are the one who pays. Do not expect the truth from a liar. Read the Bible to learn the truth and God will open your eyes.

September 8, 2011 at 11:35 am |

Auntie Warhol

So, everyone but the Bible salesman is a liar?

September 8, 2011 at 11:47 am |

Clos

A BS in science? Sounds made up.

September 8, 2011 at 11:57 am |

Aezel

You clearly didn't pay any attention in class then. It really is sad, if I were your professor you would have probably gotten your as$ kicked to the curb in my class.

September 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

John

BS in Science? What science? There is no such thing as just 'science'; its too vague.

September 8, 2011 at 12:07 pm |

carol123456

The World runs on Science. get used to it.

September 8, 2011 at 12:08 pm |

nomorespecialinterestBS

The Bible, America's greatest theatrical prop. (George Carlin)

September 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

Science>Bible

Let me guess: you graduated from Oral Roberts University? Anyone who clings to biblical fairy tales AND has a science degree needs to at once demand a refund on tuition paid...you are too far gone to be 'saved' with an education. Keep tithing 10% to whatever anti-science, anti-progress, anti-education group you like. You and your kind will eventually be 'evolved' out of existence in favor of humans with the capacity to fight the brainwashing. ASSASSINATE YOUR RELIGION!!!

September 8, 2011 at 12:14 pm |

junglecat

Sad.! Did you party the whole 4 years or not take any decent biiology or science classes..? Once most brainwashed extreme Christians get into college biology, the overwelming facts create many phlosopical crisis and growth. When I attended physical anthropology at a Catholic school evolution and genetics back then the issue was rarely brought up and did not contradict belief, in fact I never met a creationist until 15 years into my career. To me rellgion should not negate knowedge or a search for truth. It is sad that people believe it does now. it does not bode well for our country, the human race. or the planet.

September 8, 2011 at 12:15 pm |

Chris R

Actually, physicians in the 1950s were saying that cigarettes caused cancer. I don't know where you got your information.

September 8, 2011 at 12:19 pm |

Mike3488

I believe scientist will saywhatever lobbyist want them to say as long as they get their funding. Scientist who oppose and go toward the path of Intelligent Design suddenly are booted from the good ol boys club and their careers are halted and suddenly fired from universities.....Watch Ben Stein's Expelled movie it outlines this culture. My kids are pulled from studying the evolution theory becasue thats all it is a theory and the education system also recognizes this it the colleges that think they know it all. The constitution is centered around God...not the apeman. We live in a free country so believe what you want...your choice.

September 8, 2011 at 12:22 pm |

Science>Bible

Wow...you frighten me. Please step away from the computer before your utter nonsense infects the InterWebs!!! Are you serious? Have you read a book? Ever? Ben Stein's Expelled? That's pure, solid gold. I'm wanting to laugh hysterically and then I catch myself and realize that there are millions of complete ignoramuses like you who are EVERYWHERE and it really scares me. The educated, progressive, scientifically literate populace must stand up and FIGHT the notion that it's okay to teach children that biblical stories are fact. You sir are only a short distance from the terrorists who destroyed NYC at 9/11. Religious zealots will spell the end of humanity...PERIOD!

September 8, 2011 at 12:32 pm |

Ben Stein's Expelled

If you want to talk about exclusivity, the producer of Ben Stein's Expelled didn't even let the Evolutionary Scientists interviewed in the movie attend the premier of the movie they themselves were in.

Besides, there is a very good reason that Intelligent Design proponents are excluded from science departments at Universities: it isn't science! The entire foundation of ID and every single real world example used to "prove it" has been discredited several times over. The main advocates of it frequently display an extremely poor grasp of the material they profess to be experts in.

A) The Constitution is not centered around God. There is no mention of God or Christ in the text of the Constitution. The entire focus of the Constitution is the interaction of citizens and the state. Nothing else.
B) If intelligent design supporters can provide scientifically verifiable proof of their arguments they should not be shunned. However, if they stick to their theory with no support then they should rightly be removed from the scientific community for being non-scientific. As of yet the intelligent design supporters have not put forward *any* supportable scientific evidence.
C) Evolution does *not* deny God. Evolution simply does not address the question of God because God is metaphysical and evolution only addresses the physical. Anyone who uses evolution to deny or support the existence of God is being unscientific and using the facts incorrectly. All they can say is that life can come to it's present form via natural processes – that is not a denial of God.

September 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

Iconoclast

"Scientists" who teach Intelligent Design get fired and their careers halted because they are teaching pseudo-scientific religious mumbo jumbo. Shame on you for denying your children a proper education. If religious institutions want to teach fairy tales as fact I guess that's what you pay them for. I want a school that is funded by my tax dollars to teach math, science, language, civics, vocations and the like. Keep your religion out of public education, and we'll keep education out of parochial school where you can feed your poor defenseless offspring all the B.S. you can afford. If I had my way, you would be charged with child abuse.

September 9, 2011 at 5:11 pm |

Nix68

Nature made us–nature did it all–not the gods of the religions. Thomas A. Edison

Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear. Thomas Jefferson

When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one. Benjamin Franklin

I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own–a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism. Albert Einstein

September 12, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

Jeff

A B.S. in science?! that's it science?! I guess you must know all of them. Well, I have a Master's degree in World. So unless someone here has a PHD in universe, I know more than you.

September 8, 2011 at 12:41 pm |

Cedar Rapids

'So unless someone here has a PHD in universe, I know more than you.'
well I didn't want to brag but....

September 8, 2011 at 1:37 pm |

Science is performed by humans

We often forget that Science is performed only by humans. The scientific method in and of itself may be infallible but the humans that perform it aren't. Sure, there have been liars in the midst of great scientists but in the long run, truth will prevail. Besides, what is the alternative to advance human knowledge? Religious prophecy that may or may not be completely made up on the spot as its pronouncements are completely unverifiable? That doesn't sound like a great alternative to me.

September 8, 2011 at 12:46 pm |

Guester

You seem to have a poor understanding of science.

September 8, 2011 at 1:36 pm |

Alex Gessong

@o3man: Yes, sounds like B.S. alright, but not in science. What school gives a degree in "science"? And how on earth would you conclude that "most scientists are liars"? Yes, tobacco companies did pay some researchers to claim that there was no conclusive evidence that smoking causes diseases. But those people were PAID to say that. That's no reflection on "most scientists." As for "truth" in the Bible, to be considered "true", there has to be objective evidence. There's no objective evidence in the Bible. If you take the Bible as "truth" you have to accept the idea that a talking snake tricked a human into eating a piece of magical fruit. That's in the Bible's book of Genesis. A talking snake. Magic fruit. Get real. It's a fable, not "truth." Religion may bring you inner peace, but for finding truth, you must turn to science. For example, the science known as herpetology says snakes can't talk, which is supported by objective evidence. That's truth, pure and simple.

September 8, 2011 at 6:06 pm |

emodido

So, how many bad trannies have you actually had?

September 8, 2011 at 7:39 pm |

beubanks7507

I also have a BS in science, just mine is in physics with a healthy dose of geology, chemistry, math, and astronomy. I find your statement to be insulting and ignorant. This is a free country so, you can believe what you want. However, do not berate others for trying to discern truth from evidence.

The theory of evolution has been verified by research and experimentation. If you deny evolution on the grounds that it can't be proven, you should also deny gravity. Gravity has not been prove to exist. We can not determine it's source and do not know the nature of gravity. All we know is that there is something there that attracts objects to each other. At least with evolution, we know the nature, mechanism, and method of the process. Much more than can be said for gravity.

Additionally, evolution does not deny the existence of God. It does not even address the question. All evolution deals with the the change of organisms over time due to environmental and population pressures. Do you deny that people with heritage from different parts of the world look different. For example, people from Africa are dark skinned and rather lanky where as people from northern Europe and the Arctic tend to be light skinned and rather stocky. This is an example of evolution. People residing in these areas under went physical changes to adapt them to their environment. Sickle Cell Anemia is an evolutionary result as a response to the malaria parasite.

It is simple, to deny evolution is to deny what your eyes are telling you about the world around you. Now, if you want to do that, it is your choice. However, accept that others do think evolution is a good theory that explains a lot about the world and keep your mouth shut unless asked. I am sure no one has cared enough to cram evolution down your throat unless you opened your maw.

September 10, 2011 at 4:59 am |

fimeilleur

Hope you got a refund for your edumication... a real science degree would be a BSc, and then it would be quantified (as in a BSc in Biology, or BSc in Chemistry)... and a real student would have known that.

September 10, 2011 at 9:29 pm |

beubanks7507

I think that they have missed an important point here. There is no reason that all of these different species could not be in our direct line of heritage. This is because there is no evidence that they could not have interbred. They made this same mistake with neanderthals. In addition, there is no real evidence of when these species died out. They may have been around long enough to breed with early members of the Homo genus. This area of research is gray at best and the author did a poor job of making that clear.

September 8, 2011 at 11:30 am |

Aezel

They mention this skeleton could be a direct ancestor, or a side branch that dead ended, or a descendant of a related ancestor, and not only could it be a direct ancestor, they admit they don't know where exactly it fits in the line.

I'd say the article makes it pretty clear that scientists haven't come to any certain conclusions, and that they will need more research before trying to support a more solidified conclusion.

September 8, 2011 at 11:35 am |

Lacking Evidence since 14 Billion BCE

The problem is that these populations are separated by time and not just location, like circular species that we see today. Since one didn't live at the same time, there wouldn't be the same species around at the to interbred. The same thing would happen if humans isolated a population of humans today for the next 500,000 years and didn't allow any outside genetic material and then see if we can interbred. It's all about time, mass amounts of time. The species wouldn't really "die out", it's more that we'd have evolved so much in 2 million years that if we had a 2 million year old ancestor now we would be a different species.

September 8, 2011 at 11:39 am |

beubanks7507

As I understood the article, all of the various non-Homo species existed somewhat concurrently with each other. Perhaps not all at once though. If this is true, we can not rule out the inter-breeding possibility. The only way to determine this is by DNA analysis (that is incontrovertibly, anyway) but, that is almost certainly not a possibility. Much more needs to be done but, I can see this getting a lot more complex before it gets better.

September 9, 2011 at 1:09 pm |

Sean

Notice this is not under the Belief blog.

September 8, 2011 at 11:28 am |

Chuck

Doesn't matter...the fundies will make it a matter of "faith."

September 8, 2011 at 11:31 am |

Wade

Damned skippy they will. Every time an article on evolutionary biology or cosmology is printed, I know it's just a matter of time before they come crawling from the woodwork.....

September 8, 2011 at 12:28 pm |

Tool

This should be under the faith section – cause it certainly takes a mountain of faith to accept what these scientists are claiming.

September 8, 2011 at 11:40 am |

Auntie Warhol

No, it doesn't. It takes some education, research and rational thinking. The fact that I do not understand how an integrated circuit works does not mean that it does not work.

September 8, 2011 at 11:49 am |

Sean

There is no faith section Tool. A lack of understanding of the differences between belief and faith is common among fundies.

September 8, 2011 at 11:49 am |

Aezel

It only takes "faith" to accept evolution if you are way to f***ing stupid to understand basic scientific principals and what constitutes evidence. Clearly you fall into that category.

September 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

Mike

This stuff is fascinating. Too bad over half the U.S. population doesn't believe in evolution, nor education, apparently . . .

September 8, 2011 at 11:23 am |

Bill55

God put bones and other evidence to confuse the sheeple. From the nutty comments here, He was quite sucessful.
You only need to go back a few hundred years to see that people are about a foot taller than their ancestors from 200 years ago. Is that not evolving?
Hard to believe that you cannot believe in both. Shows a lack of intelligence.

September 8, 2011 at 11:59 am |

Talgrath

No, that's not evolution because it's called nutrition; people 100 years ago, despite what people might say of the "good old days" had far worse nutrition than we do now. Frequently, people would eat one or two "staple" foods per meal, perhaps with a handful of additions; the Irish potato famine was so terrible because that was what most Irish families ate as part of their breakfast, lunch and dinner for example. Now, I can drive to the store and buy a whole range of fresh fruits and vegetables, canned ones too; all for a price that many of us can afford. Many of our foods have additional vitamins and minerals mixed in; if you buy a box of cereal it is "enriched" with vitamins and minerals that you need. It is certainly possible that the human race is moving towards being taller; but the sudden, rapid change in height has far more to do with nutrition than evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 12:48 pm |

steve

Bill, that probably is not evolution. An increase in height is probably due to advances in medicine, access to protein and other nutrition, and better sanitation. I can't see a selective pressure in the past few hundred years that would cause taller people to have a higher reproductive fitness than people of average height. Just because there has been a change in humans doesn't necessarily mean it's due to evolution. More people are overweight than 300 years ago. That definitely isn't due to evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 12:50 pm |

Guester

Human teeth are growing smaller. That is evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 1:38 pm |

Cedar Rapids

Though it could be argued Talgrath that as humans are taller now their offsrping will taller and thus create a new 'base line' for humans.

September 8, 2011 at 1:40 pm |

mike

Talgrath ... ever considered that improvement in diet is as part of evolution as was the leaves being higher up causing the lizard's necks to get longer?

September 8, 2011 at 1:49 pm |

brando

wow! just wow! your complete lack of understanding, and failure to admit it, is sad. i won't pretend to be an expert and will admit i have much to learn about the details and minutia of evolution, but even a cursory look at the general theory of evolution explains far better and much more elegantly how humans, and the universe, came to be. sorry, but the bible, and the account of the earth spontaneously appearing fully formed as we know it today by the mere snapping of a bearded man's fingers as he floated on a cloud, is laughable at best. curious the account in genesis never mentions the universe or the myriad of galaxies still being discovered today. read a non-fiction book sometime bud, the bible is not even good enough reading material for children.

September 8, 2011 at 2:19 pm |

True christianity

True Christianity DOES NOT say that the world was created in 6000 years, only recorded history goes that far. The word DAY in Hebrew means an unspecified period of time not 24 hours for it says in the DAY that GOD created the Heavens and Earth even today we say " in my grandfather's DAY. The account in Genesis even though is primitive does get it right ( first the Earth cooled and it was without form then came the plants and animals then finally humans) how did a shepherd ( Moses) know all of that when the popular belief in his DAY was the Egyptian's and Babylonian's account "such as the Epic of Gilgamesh" and that the Earth was hanging from a Turtle. I personally believe that whoever created all of this took his long and sweet time, experimented with different species until he got it perfectly right. Life can only come from a previous life, NO EXCEPTIONS.

September 8, 2011 at 11:19 am |

Will

You could be a bridge between fundamentalist Christians and science. Peter says to God a day is a thousand years, and a thousand years is a day. You could substitute one billion years into that verse.

September 8, 2011 at 11:28 am |

True christianity

Very well said, excellent analogy.

September 8, 2011 at 11:29 am |

jeb8535

Cookoo, cookoo....

September 8, 2011 at 11:31 am |

Lacking Evidence since 14 Billion BCE

Why do you assuming that SOMEONE created it? Why does it even need to be created? What if it's always been here?

All the vague references in the bible pretty much lend themselves to be bent any which way to make it sound like it fits with what you think. The bible also references that a day is a cycle of light and darkness. Super god work light? And one light for the day and one for the night. The moon reflects the sun's light, it's not a light. I can play semantics too.

September 8, 2011 at 11:31 am |

True christianity

Because the possibility of it happening by accident is mathematically improbable ( 1 in 1 followed by 50,000 zeros). You see intelligent design in the Universe, in the way our brain works. If I told you that your Ipad was accidentally made by mixing up electronics in a soup you would be laughing at me, how much more complex is our brain that "designed" the Ipad. The idea is that there is no creator suits most people because it does not hold them accountable to anything or anyone.

September 8, 2011 at 11:43 am |

Sean

Improbable is relative to a specific time and or location. With a universe that is by all current measure infinite not only is it probable but very likely. News flash.. we are not the center of the universe.

September 8, 2011 at 11:55 am |

Anon

iPads are a horrible analogy to humans. Humans reproduce, evolve, and become more complex over time. iPads do not reproduce, do not evolve, and do not become more complex over time. Humans evolved and then created the iPad.

September 8, 2011 at 12:34 pm |

Chris R

True, you are using the statistics poorly. Lets say you are computing the chance of any single strand of the 4 nucleotides assembling into a specific 300 base pair ribozyme. That would be 4^300 for that specific ribozyme to spontaneously develop. That's unlikely to happen in the 13 Billion years history of the universe!

Of course life exists. So what are we missing? Could it be the intervention of a deity? Perhaps, but there is another explanation. The odds of the above happening are for a *specific* ribozyme. What if we simply let an enormous number of nucleotide polymer chains to develop and then compete and evolve. Turns out someone actually did that experiment (David Bartel and Jack Szostak, published in Science in 1993). After randomly synthesizing trillions of nucleotide chains each around 300 pair long they let it go to see what happened in this random mix. They imposed a selection criteria by looking for a catalyzed ligation reaction (bonding of two RNA strands). The ones that could even weakly bond were sorted out and reamplified (just like successful species breeding). After 4 rounds of this they had decreased the ligation reaction time by 7 million fold. This shows that the strands had been evolving to meet the survival characteristics. So right here we have proof of molecular evolution leading to increased survival.

So while the odds of coming up with any specific RNA strand is astronomical evolution shows that coming up with a strand that meets specific survival needs is really quite likely. The intervention of a deity is *not* necessary.

I'm not discounting that a deity might be part of our universe (in fact I believe in it strongly). However, my feeling is that God created the rules of physics and chemistry and then let them play out as they would. God would not *need* to intervene because God knew the rules and would know where things would probably lead (I'm not saying God knows the future – God can't because that is predetermination and obviates the role of Free Will. It's more that God has a strong inkling of where things will head (more specifically God isn't bound by the rules and laws of time. All moments of time exist simultaneously but the rules that God has set up necessitate cause and effect. So while God is aware of all things God removes Itself from determining the outcome of any particular event. Why not 'make things happen'? Because that would break the rules that God set up and I don't think God cheats all that often)).

September 8, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

@ True Christianity

Your analogy is a little off. I agree that a brain did not just randomly spring up. On the other hand, no one is making that claim. If you look at extremely primitive creatures, you find a similarly primitive nervous system. if you look at single cell organisms and plants you find NO nervous system. Evidence shows that the complexity arose over time, it did not just spring into being. Do I know how the first life formed? No. Lack of knowledge does not prove it impossible however. For all we know, in an environment similar to primordial Earth, life is a natural byproduct of all that is going on.

Also it IS possible that the world was created by some all-powerful being, however there is no evidence that would be acceptable to someone who has not been immersed in a religious culture. You don't accept the Greek or Norse or Aztec creation stories do you? they have just as much validity as the Abrahamaic one, and if one part is obviously false, then what makes the rest suddenly true? So if the world WAS created, why was it the Christian god that did it?

I am not bashing any belief system, just asking for thought. If you honestly think about it and still believe, then thats great. I found that I was unable to believe the more I learned and that is just how i am. You may be different, and thats fine. So long as we all treat each other with respect (that goes for believers and non-believers alike) then topics like these can be interesting ways to expand our horizons.

September 8, 2011 at 12:40 pm |

Lacking Evidence since 14 Billion BCE

"it does not hold them accountable to anything or anyone."

This one is always my favorite. Jesus is a huge get out of jail free card. If a priest molests a child and isn't caught and asks Jesus to forgive him then he gets off without punishment at all. Talk about not being accountable.

September 8, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

Aezel

Although most of your post is nonsense, where you really get into showing how uneducated and full of nonsense you are is with the statement: "Life can only come from a previous life, NO EXCEPTIONS."

How laughable and embarrassing for you to say something so stupid publicly. Go read a biology textbook.

September 8, 2011 at 11:32 am |

True christianity

I am an MD in Internal Medicine. Any questions? and yes ALL life comes from previous life NO EXCEPTIONS

September 8, 2011 at 11:49 am |

Aezel

I don't care if you are a brain surgeon. You're still a complete moron when it comes to how biological evolutionary theory works. Having a doctorate in a field doesn't mean you are qualified for shit it a different field.

September 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

Sean

Lol what ego… an MD has no more education in evolution than a biology 101 student. And as a DO I can tell you Micro evolution is commonly accepted in almost every Med programs. Macro is where it gets vaguer, even with the support of Mico.

In short your being an MD as no relevance.

September 8, 2011 at 12:03 pm |

True christianity

I have to go see my patients now, you stay here having nothing to do, oh and keep using vulgar language because of your limited vocabulary. God bless

September 8, 2011 at 12:06 pm |

Chris R

True,

I am a computer scientist and engineer that works with physicians (cardiologists, endocrinologist, and thoracic surgeons mostly). I can tell you that few of them have any specific training in the scientific process. They will read papers but their ability to critically dissect those papers is somewhat lacking. There is a significant difference between making use of science and being a scientist. Seriously, look at the impact that evidence based medicine is having in your field. It's overturning some closely held truths. How is this possible? Because evidenced based medicine uses the scientific process to test a hypothesis while previously it was based on a small number of observations which were often not properly controlled. So what we are seeing is the introduction of real science in to the practice of medicine. That this is just happening now doesn't bode well for the idea that physicians are equivalent to scientists. Obviously some are but most are not.

September 8, 2011 at 12:47 pm |

paxman

I admit not being a biology major, my degree is in math and computer science, but could you give some link or evidence that life can be created from something not living. The only theories I have read talk about experiments that can combine elements on earth to form amino acids which are the "building blocks" to create life but scientist have not been able to recreate the steps needed to jump from these building blocks to any type of actual primitive life form. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

September 8, 2011 at 12:55 pm |

paxman

Just to clarify, I believe in evolution, but I also believe there is a self-aware intelligent "force" or "being" that caused creation and evolution.

September 8, 2011 at 1:02 pm |

Chris R

Paxman, no one has created life in a tube. However, they have created self replicating RNA strands which followed an evolutionary path. They essentially created a very primitive sort of life (self replicating, evolving, etc) from nothing more than amino acids. David Bartel and Jack Szostak, published in Science in 1993.

September 8, 2011 at 1:16 pm |

paxman

Thanks, I'll read up on it. But for those who get mad and say there is no intelligent creator responsible for all this working science, I'd ask you to research Medjugorje. 6 kids in communist Yugoslavia, ages 10 through 16 having simultaneous visions, scientifically tested, threatened, arrested, etc. Can't go into it now, have a dentist appt, but info is out there, of course some of it is false and some have said the kids have made false statements or predictions but I have seen no proof of that. Time will tell, they have said certain things will happen in their lifetime, one being an undeniable sign that God exists. I'll continue to pray that you unbelievers will not deny the truth when it presents itself. Pax.

September 8, 2011 at 5:04 pm |

clearfog

If god is omniscient, why does he have to experiment?

September 8, 2011 at 11:33 am |

Scott

Technically, he never said omniscient...

And if you remove that assumption, a scientist experimenting with a set of initial conditions and tracking progression makes a certain kind of sense (it's how I've always kinda seen it)

September 8, 2011 at 11:51 am |

youngworld

Check out this article... http://www.icr.org/article/evidence-for-young-world/

September 8, 2011 at 11:37 am |

Aezel

Yes good old Russell Humphreys. Whoever gave him a degree in physics should be shot. Not only is he completely ostracized from the scientific community, he comes up with crackpot nonsense in fields he's not even qualified to comment on. His arguments about how agriculture fits in the timeline are based on biblical dates. Utter failure as a scientist, never will such total bulls**t be accepted by the rest of the science community.

He basically belongs in the "we can't figure out every detail right now so lets throw our hands up and say GOD MUSTA DUNNIT! HERP DERP!" crowd. Pathetic.

September 8, 2011 at 11:43 am |

A-Bax

Isn't the account of God's creation of life a big exception to the all-caps NO EXCEPTIONS pronouncement? And if the reply is that God counts as life, then what life did God come from? Or is this too an exception to the NO EXCEPTIONS pronouncement?

September 8, 2011 at 11:45 am |

Tunde

I do pray to God and He answers. I have met with many inexplicable situations that have brought me to conclude that there is God. How excellent is Thy Name in all the earth; how excellent is Thy Name oh Lord.

September 8, 2011 at 6:27 pm |

laurie

@true christianity...the Hebrew word for day is YOM and means an actual 24 hours...

September 8, 2011 at 4:45 pm |

Sparky101

Laurie, that is not entirely true, it can mean many things, including "years," and even "for life."

September 10, 2011 at 11:07 pm |

kelly

Why is it so easy for dimwits like you to believe that God was always there but not other things in the universe?

September 8, 2011 at 4:50 pm |

Standback

Listen, you all are just arrogant and ignorant people. It is obvious that the lord created us and the planet. Evolution is like totally impossible. All I can say is PROVE IT!

Oh wait. I forgot evolution is proof. Forget that other rubbish I mentioned.

September 8, 2011 at 11:16 am |

Kebos

Ha! Prove that your god made it. And please give reason why it wasn;t your god but one of the many gods before your god. And by the way, using the bible/koran/talmud as evidence is no argument in your support. The bible is such a contradictory piece of work that to even suggest this was written by some all-knowing, all-present force is laughable. There are better written works in our public library.

In conclusion, there is more proof and evidence (growing every day) that life was not created by some godly force. And as that happen, the religious scholars keep making excuses for why a piece of text in their "holy" scriptures was either metaphorical or doesn't really apply anymore anyway.

Religion is becoming an antiquated notion with less and less relevance in our society each year.

September 8, 2011 at 11:39 am |

Klytus Im Bored

I have a strange feeling that there was some sarcasm in Standback's post, and you might have missed it.

September 8, 2011 at 12:23 pm |

NiceTry

What makes you say the Bible is contradictory? Contradictory to what? Every verse in the Bible can be cross-referenced to another verse in the Bible that confirms what is being said. If you ask me, that seems to be quite the opposite of contradictory.

September 8, 2011 at 3:25 pm |

BethTX

BLASPHEMY! The Flying Spaghetti Monster created us all from pasta and meaty sauce.

September 8, 2011 at 11:15 am |

MikeKY

Rubbish! He used marinara sauce!

September 8, 2011 at 11:31 am |

Chuck

Ramen!

September 8, 2011 at 11:32 am |

clearfog

I see the light. That would make humans . . . Top Ramen.

September 8, 2011 at 11:56 am |

NoClu

May he touch you with his noodly appendage.

September 8, 2011 at 11:58 am |

Chef Boyardee

If it's a bad touch, can I sue Barilla?

September 8, 2011 at 7:15 pm |

moonk

As a professional in the field of social science where research is based on hundreds of subjects who are chosen at random–it is very hard to accept conclusions based on a sample composed of a single individual. How can anthropologists assume this individual is typical of their species? Especially if the conclusion is based on fragments of a partial skeleton–it means the sample size is actually .37 or less than 1/2.

September 8, 2011 at 11:08 am |

Lee S

They have two skeletons there Mr Professional.

September 8, 2011 at 11:11 am |

moonk

If you read carefully, you will see that there is only 1 adult specimen. The other partial fragments are of a male child. Drawing conclusions about an entire population based on a juvenile specimen are considered "weak" science–even in anthropology.

September 8, 2011 at 11:21 am |

Bill

Paleoanthropologists would love to have statistically significant samples sizes, but the fact is that for some taxa it isn't possible. Because of various preservational biases primates have a poor fossil record. The best we can do is look at variation among modern primates and compare that variation to the fossil record. There are many current and past disagreements among paleoanthropologists concerning how to organize specimens into species due to limited understanding of population variation. In the end you have to do the best you can with the data at hand,

September 8, 2011 at 11:25 am |

Observer

"Drawing conclusions about an entire population based on a juvenile specimen are considered "weak" science–even in anthropology."

TWO skeletons. Pretending that the SECOND one doesn't count, even though it supports the first one, doesn't cut it.

September 8, 2011 at 11:26 am |

moonk

Thanks for the replies from those who say that paleo-anthropologists aren't making broad sweeping claims about their finds. Some of the blame goes to the regurgitation of mass media journalists who omit some of the nuances that are used in scientific writing. For the record, I'm not objecting to descriptive information like the size of cranial cavities–my difficulties are with the behavioral claims– e.g., they spent most of their time in trees, walked upright, used tools etc.

September 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

Behavioral Claims are modeled after real world examples

Evolutionary Biologists make inferences about extinct animal behavior based on observations and tests of existing animals. If you measure that a cup of water freezes at 0 degress C, you can infer that the same cup of water froze at 0c in 10,000 BC before a thermometer was invented.

September 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

Bill Duke

Exactly right. Far too many "scientists" claim to have an answer based upon 1% fact and 99% theory and guesswork.

September 8, 2011 at 11:18 am |

Bill

Why do you put scientists in quotations? Nothing in the article is a violation of scientific methodology.

September 8, 2011 at 11:27 am |

Chuck

There's no assumption of representativeness and generalization is done with great hesitation. Just like in any field study, the goal is to understand the context and specific subject as completely as possible.

What's most likely is that each of these species we're finding is not representative of a species, but rather of a POINT along the evolutionary trajectory. Since "species" is a fairly temporal concept - one species evolves into another species - where you differentiate depends entirely on what fossil evidence you find.

It's kind of like the evolutionary biologist's answer to the old joke, "Which came first: the chicken or the egg?" He'd answer, "The egg, because whatever laid the egg wasn't quite a chicken."

September 8, 2011 at 11:21 am |

Aezel

It is sort of embarrassing for you to be a "scientist" and yet lack reading comprehension. Nowhere in the article does it say that anyone is making any 100% claims. Several different theories about what this could mean have been presented and nobody says they know for sure where it fits in. Scientists are doing what scientists do: they have some new evidence in this skeleton, and they are making preliminary theories, which will then be followed up by hopefully finding more skeletons that will either support or contradict their theories, and they will then hone them and eliminate certain possibilities. Seriously, do I need to give you a lecture on the basic way the scientific method works?

September 8, 2011 at 11:29 am |

Martin

If you picked a human at random there is a great probability that you would get an individual sufficiently typical of our species to draw broad conclusions. The probability of getting an individual that was severely deformed in every aspect would be quite remote. These folks are real scientists, not social scientists-LOL!

September 8, 2011 at 11:29 am |

moonk

There is still a great deal of variation–take height for example. We know that it can vary considerably based on nutrition (N. Korea) or genetics (pygmy tribes of central Africa.) Another common example is the absence/presence of wisdom teeth. (just genetic variation? or evolution at work? ) I can take a random sample of the world population and see that the majority will fall in the middle--but there will be many outliers at each end of the scale.

September 8, 2011 at 12:35 pm |

Lila

They are sharing their research, it's clearly "what ifs". There are billions of people on the planet today to study. However, our ancestors had tiny populations who lived short brutal lives and researchers are trying to find their remains that are millions of years old. Not easy to do. I will never understand why people complain about the hard work these researchers do, they never claim to know all the answers, just provide their research.

September 8, 2011 at 11:48 am |

Ike

You are correct and even with two skeletons they are partial. If you look at most skeletons of early primates there are a few complete bones and the rest are fill-ins as to the interpretors imagination. Lucy is one of the more complete fossils at 40% and yet she bears all of the markings of present day apes, except for a knee bone which was found many feet down and 1.6 miles away from the Lucy site. Also her hip bone would not allow for walking upright, even if the knee bone pointed in that direction.
"Australopithecus sediba's skull shows a cranial capacity of 420 cubic centimeters, whereas a chimpanzee's is about 380 cubic centimeters. Homo erectus is about 200,000 years younger than Australopithecus sediba, and its cranial capacity would be a whopping 900 cubic centimeters." So its brain size is about 40 cc larger than a chimps, but 480 less than man's. So it was a monkey with a slightly larger brain size, still nowhere close to humans.
"human-like, ape-like"
Also the much older Lucy skeleton had a "more advanced heel" than this fossil and was bigger as well, so we have reverse evolution going on here.
Or maybe the scientist don't have a clue.

September 8, 2011 at 11:59 am |

Bestoink Dooley

Ike,you have no scientific background and little knowledge,yet you presume to know more than the scientists who've studied these fossils extensively. You need to shut up.

September 12, 2011 at 10:46 am |

Actual Anthropologist

Spare us the pretense that "social sciences" have anything to do with science. Most, and I have to include social anthropology among them, are nothing more than sophism wrapped in a layer of pseudoscience.

Biological anthro-physical anthro, paleoanthro, etc-is based on biology, not wishful thinking about massaged statistics and self-fulfilling prophecies from based pbservers.

Is a small sample a problem here? Not really. Especially when there is a second skeleton with the same morphology present in the available bones. Healthy "one-off" mutants aren't exactly growing on trees: if a specimen is this different, and had managed to live well into adulthood as this one did, then it's a near certainty that there was a population of similar hominids. The second (partial) skeleton demonstrates exactly this.

September 8, 2011 at 7:24 pm |

Bestoink Dooley

Well said. How refreshing to hear a real professional on the subject, Actual Anthro. These laymen, magic man in the sky believers who have absolutely no knowlegde on the subject drawing there own ignorant conclusions about something they know nothing about. Quite appalling

September 12, 2011 at 11:15 am |

Larry Fine

Lets go back to the earth being flat, at least the GOP would fund it.

September 8, 2011 at 11:08 am |

Bill Duke

And the Democrats would believe it if Al Gore told them to.

September 8, 2011 at 11:15 am |

Chuck

I think you need to update your jokes to reference things relevant to the current decade. Or, better yet, just think them to yourself inside your tiny head.

September 8, 2011 at 11:24 am |

Martin

But he wouldn't!

September 8, 2011 at 11:30 am |

mseikeh

Scientificaly speaking and just for sake of "cross verification", it would be interesting if someone gets a skeleton of some modern day apes; work it out somehow to appear ancient, let them find it; and see how would they evaluate it and where would they place it.

September 8, 2011 at 11:05 am |

Lee S

Dont know much about carbon dating do you? I think this has been tried before actually. Not too meniton just as modern humans, apes did not exist in the form they do today as they did milloins of years ago. Is that all your pea brain can come up with? Go to sunday school.

September 8, 2011 at 11:10 am |

Sean

Been done.

Piltdown Man

September 8, 2011 at 11:21 am |

Martin

Exactly-you beat me to it!

September 8, 2011 at 11:31 am |

Sparky101

It happened even more recently, in 1999, with the Chinese bird/reptile that duped the scientists. They proclaimed it a true transitional fossil that proved the lineage from reptiles to birds. National Geographic had an artist draw it with colorful scales and feathers for their cover story. When it was found to be a hoax, the Nat. Geo. was so embarrassed it quietly put the retraction on a nondescript back page.

September 10, 2011 at 10:48 pm |

Bestoink Dooley

The answer to your question is simple, they'd know immediately they were modern apes.

September 12, 2011 at 11:08 am |

us1776

But the tea party says the world is only 6000 years old !!

Oh, who to believe, educated scientists or the tea party?

Such a tough choice.

.

September 8, 2011 at 11:03 am |

Lee S

Yea, just like following people like yourself that post asinine comments on a particular group of people they don t agree with have always led the future generations. Youre so "progressive" arent you? HAHAHAHA. Freakn lameass.

How manfully us1776 has erected it. And with such virile blows he is now beating it up.

It's a pity us1776 didn't actually have a real argument to use against the Tea Party...

September 8, 2011 at 7:27 pm |

James

Not this evolution business again. Clearly a magical sky wizard snapped its fingers and everything instantly sprung in to existence. It's the only reasonable explanation and it must be correct because the Republicans say so.

September 8, 2011 at 11:00 am |

Bill Duke

No worries. The DemcRATS will Hopey & Changy it all away for you.

September 8, 2011 at 11:14 am |

James

What? Praying to a genie in the sky to solve all of your problems is the Republican plan. It's the only plan they've got, it would be rather unsportsmanlike like for the dems to try and emulate it.

September 8, 2011 at 11:16 am |

Hawks

Yes, a creator is as far fetched an idea as the almighty primordial soup. Which, with infinitate odds came together and created the magic slime that crawled out of the soup and you evolved from. What an ancestor! You should be proud.
Your life has such meaning. Such purpose.

Scientists just like weathermen, wrong millions of times, yet some people cling to them as the bastion of hope.

September 8, 2011 at 11:23 am |

Chuck

Who said life was guaranteed to have meaning?

So silly.

September 8, 2011 at 11:25 am |

James

So I assume you live in a shack in the woods with no power, running water, medicine, etc.? The computer you're using right now? Science. Science is responsible for everything good in your life, you can thank the church for your inability to think intelligently. My life has purpose, yours is predicated on the hope that some delusional fairy tale comes true. I feel bad for you.

September 8, 2011 at 11:31 am |

Martin

Abraham, Moses, and Jesus...Santa, Tinkerbell, and the Tooth Fairy!

September 8, 2011 at 11:34 am |

John

God created humans so he can have them worship him. What is the point of that?

September 8, 2011 at 12:10 pm |

Cubbierule

It's Homo habilis, not habilus. Fyi.

September 8, 2011 at 10:52 am |

elandau

You are absolutely right, and I am changing that spelling right now. Thanks!

Elizabeth Landau, CNN

September 8, 2011 at 6:59 pm |

kkelly

what??? Evolution? You mean it exists? But Christine O'Donnell said it wasn't so! (Heavy sarcasm)

September 8, 2011 at 10:42 am |

TheButcher

Keep in mind science is simply our attempt to grasp reality. Science, in itself, requires a leap of faith. We are technically infants in this universe and our concepts, regardless of how intelligent we think we are, will ultimatly be proven wrong. So you can say that fossil remains disprove the existance of God if you wish, since you have such a grasp on the universe. Ask any scientist if it's 'possible' to engineer a living being. If it hasn't happened, it will happen. Someday, somewhere, someone will create new life. Yet, the concept is unbelievable?

September 8, 2011 at 11:20 am |

myths are for kids

uhmm, which god by the way? Zeus? His son Apollo? I wish Apollo would wake up and bring the sun across the sky this morning, it sure is rainy. So many gods, so little proof ... it sure is hard to pick a myth to waist my brain believing in.

September 8, 2011 at 11:40 am |

clsjey

Actually, it may happen sooner that we think. It's just about accomplished for bacteria.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10132762

September 8, 2011 at 11:51 am |

TheTruth

Yes it exist, but only in the minds of those who desperately need it to justify their failed world view. If evolution were true then there should be literally millions of lifeforms that are thousands if not millions of times more advanced than we are in the universe. We do not need to find them, they would have known of our existence millions of years ago. Also where is this proof you speak of? There should be BILLIONS of traditional skeletal records from the beginning of time showing gradual transition from one form into another. Doesn't exist, that is why you are here looking at this article, not for truth but only to strengthen and reinforce your world view. If ALL the scientist in the world were honest people they would allow their research to take them to the truth. The sad truth though is evolution IS a religion in unto it's self. It is a belief in the unseen and observable process that doesn't have the physical evidence to back up it's claims. At least in Christianity there was a real man on a real planet that went to a real cross and really died. His followers fled when He was crucified, and when they saw Him raised from the dead they were sop sure of this Fact that they were willing to be tortured and killed to spread the Truth of His Resurrection.

September 8, 2011 at 11:58 am |

Jon

All life is a transitional lifeform. There is mountains of evidence for Evolution. The only source for "evidence" of Jesus are in the gospels. Even those don't jive with one another (ex: only two of them mention the virgin birth) I wonder what would be your definition of evidence?

September 8, 2011 at 12:56 pm |

Chris R

Actually there may be millions of life forms out there that are far more advanced than us. So why haven't they found us and enrolled us in some sort of galactic empire? Well, you have to understand that the speed of light can't be broken. There are some ideas about how to go faster than light but the practical application of this hyperspace travel is unlikely for something sufficiently large to be called a space craft. Assuming that sufficiently advanced species have simply resolved this problem is magical thinking. The result of this limitation is that interstellar travel would be *really* difficult, expensive, dangerous, and essentially pointless – no trade, no real colonization, etc etc etc. So the motivation to go gallivanting between the stars is probably limited.

You also need to consider that the motivations of other species would probably be unrecognizable to us. Science fiction loves to make aliens act just like humans with too many arms but that's fiction. The reality would likely be significantly different – they would essentially be unknowable to us. Likewise their technology might be unknowable to us – they may not use radio waves. They may not see in the visible light range. We may not be able to see any signs of them because we don't even know what to look for.

You might also have the problem where they may take very different evolutionary paths. For example, why is it entirely necessary that a species would need to inhabit a physical body? They may have evolved as such but it might make a certain amount of sense if they just 'uploaded' themselves into a vast computer like matrix and lived their lives as beings of consciousness alone. How would we detect them then?

Lastly, it's also likely that species die out. Even advanced species may die out. As their sun starts to die, because of some gamma ray burst, due to war or disease, a massive collision with an asteroid, even ennui. So perhaps there are species that have evolved elsewhere in the universe but a) they can't reach us because physics are physics, b) we may not even recognize them, c) we may not be able to detect them, and d) they may die out making them even more rare.

September 8, 2011 at 1:00 pm |

Jon

The reason those other life forms haven't contacted us is because they are more advanced than we are and, therefore, know better than to do it. Since the universe is the surface of a hypersphere (of which time is the radius), travelling vast distance is a matter of looking in another direction. Since one would spend half the trip going back in time and the other half catching up, it would appear to be instantaneous.
BTW, I'm a different Jon.

September 11, 2011 at 10:28 am |

JD

Before the creation nuts get on here I would like to first point out that science does not know all the answers but is always searching unlike religion (Christianity in particular) who is happy with a creation story and myth (yes, story and myth) and doesn't think it needs to look farther. I'm open to all the possibilities, including creation to an extent, but the simple fact is that no one really knows how life developed here and I applaud science for constantly looking for an answer.

September 8, 2011 at 10:40 am |

kkelly

Amen!

September 8, 2011 at 10:43 am |

NotSoFast

So basically your post was just to attack *some* Christians viewpoint before they even come on here? Doesn't that strike you as slightly hypocritical? And FYI, the overwhelming majority of Christians believe that creationism and science are not mutually exclusive. So please don't make such broad statements 🙂 Thank you.

September 8, 2011 at 10:57 am |

Martin

They're already here. Read the earlier posts...

September 8, 2011 at 11:35 am |

pasigiri

Your comment makes know since. Christians aren't searching for "the answers" to the beginning of everything because they have there answer. When you solve a math problem, say 2+2, and get the answer 4, do you continue to try and figure out the answer? That's insanity. The concept of "something from nothing" is not an answer because nothing is exactly that, nothing. So something though happened, right? Everything that is had to have come from something. And it did. All things have come into being because they were CALLED into being. This is called creation. This is not rearrangements of matter and molecules like in an explosion and such. And the act of creation has an executor, call Him God for lack of better terms. THIS to me makes WAY more since than ANY scientific explanation I've heard or read (my dad is an MIT graduate, PhD in Molecular Biology, so I've been around some VERY smart scientists all my life).

Look, scientists have already concluded that there is an intelligent design to all that is known AND unknown. To think otherwise is to break all scientific rules. On a personal level, I like the truth (creation). It let's me know I'M NOT AN ACCIDENT.

September 8, 2011 at 11:13 am |

Observer

pasigiri,

"The concept of "something from nothing" is not an answer because nothing is exactly that, nothing."

So now tell us that God came from nothing and built the world out of nothing.

September 8, 2011 at 11:17 am |

yo

you make know since

September 8, 2011 at 11:19 am |

cliff

yes, it makes "know" sense

September 8, 2011 at 11:20 am |

Chuck

Wow, for someone who is apparently barely literate, you sure seem awfully confident in what you think you know.

@Observer – "So now tell us that God came from nothing and built the world out of nothing." God has no beginning and no end. He is not bound by the laws that He created (Time, Space, Matter) So He didn't come from nothing, He in fact Eternal. The creation of the Universe out of nothing points to something outside of the laws of time, space and matter. This is why the explanation of the beginning of the Universe it's self breaks the very laws of nature in order to explain it's own existence. Where did the matter and energy come from? From the very mouth of God. If you think this is an over simple explanation then you need to do a study on sound waves and vibrations at various frequencies to see how these things can arrange matter inside of time and space. If evolution was true then scientist wouldn't get so excited every time they found a skeleton FRAGMENT that proves their failed theory. If macro evolution was true there should be BILLIONS of transitional skeletons, not some made up forced story passed off as fact.

September 8, 2011 at 11:41 am |

com'on

@pasigiri
OMG...(pun intended)...

"Look, scientists have already concluded that there is an intelligent design to all that is known AND unknown."
When/where did that happen? Do you have any reference to that assertion?

"To think otherwise is to break all scientific rules."
Can you expand and tell us which scientific rules do you think will be broken?

"On a personal level, I like the truth (creation). It let's me know I'M NOT AN ACCIDENT."
Sorry to disappoint you, but we all are...and to make it worst for you, cosmically speaking, we are infinitesimally irrelevant...so now say your prayers and sleep well (you're welcome).

September 8, 2011 at 11:58 am |

Observer

TheTruth,

"If macro evolution was true there should be BILLIONS of transitional skeletons, not some made up forced story passed off as fact."

If you knew anything about science, you would know about decomposition. Read something other than the Bible. You'll never learn any science from it. Jesus, supposedly the most knowledgeable man ever, NEVER passed on ANY new science. He never mentioned the earth was round and not the center of the universe. It could have prevented all kinds of religious nuts from persecuting SMARTER people.

September 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

Jon

Actually something can come from nothing. Subatomic particles pop into existence from nothing and just as quickly disappear. They very well indeed come from nothing. The same could apply to our universe as a whole, which could be nothing more than a closed electron.

As for the "accident" part, we are here but chance and serendipity. I feel humility with that thought because the universe is a downright nasty and deadly place. In this little neck of the woods, we evolved.

Faith, yes. But faith based on the best available evidence. Consider Jesus's disciples. If He had not actually done the things that caused him to be called the Son of God, they would have known it. They would have had absolutely no reason to go to their deaths for something they knew to be a lie. Also, they convinced others, who also knew they faced suffering and death, to become Christians, based on what they (the hearers) knew. None of this makes any sense unless Jesus was who He claimed to be.

There have been a number of people, including Simon Greenleaf (a lawyer whose book on the rules of evidence was the standard reference for much of the 19th century), who started out to disprove the Bible accounts, but ended up concluding that they were true.

September 8, 2011 at 1:01 pm |

TheTruth

@ Observer. Yes, even with decomposition there should be literally BILLIONS of transitional skeletons...you know one for every year that the world has been in existence. Jesus didn't come to teach a science lesson, His mission was to come and bear the full weight of mans sin, and overcome it so that you and I can have a restored relationship with God. Mission accomplished. He wasn't interested in pacifying those who seek truth in falsehoods made up by man that are masquerader as the truth. HE IS THE TRUTH! Period! The problem wasn't that He needed to teach man that the earth wasn't the center of the Universe, He came to teach that MAN wasn't the center of the Universe. You worry so much about the material universe all the while you deny the spiritual. See, you think somehow through knowledge you can obtain salvation. The only knowledge that can lead to salvation is the FACT that Jesus came to this earth, humbled himself to live as a man, faced everyone of our trials, tribulations, and temptations and overcame them all, He humbled Himself to be the servant of ALL men for all time and He took on the sins of us all. Even just knowing this will not save you, but trusting in Him and living for Him will. Man well NEVER evolve into perfection. Perfection only comes through God Himself.

September 8, 2011 at 1:05 pm |

Daniel

No, you are not an accident. The Bible says you were fearfully and wonderfully made. Stay strong in your belief and faith in God. The Bible also says in the end times scoffers will increase. It's obvious from this post. God Bless You!

September 8, 2011 at 5:24 pm |

jesus

Maybe someone should tell these so called "scientists" that my dad did it in a week.

Idiots...

September 8, 2011 at 10:40 am |

kkelly

Of course we are idiots compared to God. But I think our father would be proud of us that we are using our gifts of intelligence to explore this great home/universe. Otherwise, we would still be scratching in the dirt. It is called progress: exploring and expanding the human intellect (with all of its good & evil consequences). We should always look forward, being aware of our past (good and bad). In this way we can find our true purpose.

September 8, 2011 at 10:50 am |

HotRain12

Kkelly how could you mention God then say he would want us to explore possibilities that we came from a monkey?

September 8, 2011 at 11:02 am |

Chuck

Thanks for providing even more evidence that religion and logical thinking can't co-exist in the same mind.

September 8, 2011 at 11:28 am |

Bob

Chuck, I disagree. I base my belief in God on what is most logical, given all the evidence.

September 8, 2011 at 12:00 pm |

Buddha

Pictures or it didn't happen.

September 8, 2011 at 10:59 am |

Martin

Gotcha-if it's not on YouTube, you won't believe it.

September 8, 2011 at 11:39 am |

Linoge

You like your books to have lots of pictures too . . . don't you.

September 8, 2011 at 11:54 am |

Bible Clown

Lin, I'm currently reading DUST OF DREAMS by Steven Erikson. It could use a few pictures.

September 8, 2011 at 4:06 pm |

mightaswellbe

Your Dad is a product of the human mind and so are you.

September 8, 2011 at 11:00 am |

Observer

Jesus,

Your dad may have done it in a week, but he so miserably miscalculated how man would turn out that he ended up killing (with only 8 exceptions) every man, woman (pregnant or not), and child on the face of the earth.

September 8, 2011 at 11:01 am |

TheTruth

True, this is how dangerous and corrosive sin is. Left unchecked it will destroy ever man, woman and child off the face of the earth. God didn't miscalculate, He knew that if sin entered the world (By the choice of all men, yourself included.) then there would have to be drastic measures to overcome it, that is why He sent His only Son Jesus to pay the price for ALL mans sins. In today's culture sin is passed off as a joke, no big deal, but the truth is this. Man's sin was so bad that only an all Holly and Righteous God could make the payment in full. Give yourself over to sin and you have in fact chosen death, give your life over to Christ and you have chosen everlasting life.

September 8, 2011 at 11:29 am |

Observer

TheTruth,

Any boss who so completely bungled his creation that he had to destroy virtually every copy would be fired. So tell us that God who is perfect expected that he'd have to kill almost everyone off he had created and start all over.

September 8, 2011 at 12:11 pm |

Bob

Observer: Let's say you buy a car. The manufacturer tells you to use six quarts of oil and premium gasoline, and to drive it slowly for the first thousand miles. So you put in the lowest grade of gasoline you can find, drain all the oil and water, and start off down the road at 100 miles per hour. Would you look at the result and say, "Wow, the manufacturer sure bungled the design of that car?" I doubt it. God is no more responsible for what man did than the manufacturer would be for what you did with the car.

September 8, 2011 at 12:24 pm |

Observer

Bob,

Car manufacturers don't claim that they are perfect and that they know everything so they will know how it will turn out.

September 8, 2011 at 12:26 pm |

TheTruth72

@Observer....There were no miscalculations on God's end. He had and still has a plan. Please continue reading after Noah and you may end up seeing it. Oh.....and His plan is still going without a hitch. Prophesy is being fulfilled daily now.

September 8, 2011 at 12:39 pm |

Bob

Observer,

"Car manufacturers don't claim that they are perfect and that they know everything so they will know how it will turn out."

That is true. But the fact remains that man, not God did the bungling. You may say that if God knew what would happen, he should have prevented it. But it would have been a logical impossibility for God to allow man to choose what to do, but not to be able to make a bad choice. It appears you don't believe in God, but let me ask you a question: If God exists and God created you, would you rather be as you are or be a puppet who could only do something when God pulls the strings?

September 8, 2011 at 1:13 pm |

TheTruth

@ Observer- God wasn't making robots or machinery. Our bodies may be the most complex machine ever created but it does not define us. We are more than computer code (our DNA) we are spirit as well. We are not the illusion of life but we were created in the very image of God. God gave us free will, each and everyone of us, and each and everyone of us has rejected His ways and His teachings. That is why we live in a fractured creation. The consequences of our (mans) sin are what we are living through today. Sadly, things are not going to get better, man will continue to choose sin and his own ways over God until a great climax. At that point there is no choice anymore for anyone, you have either chosen God or you have rejected Him for all eternity. Eternal separation from God is HELL. All good things come from God..ALL. Remove yourself from God and you remove yourself from ALL things good. But God does not force you to love Him, He has done EVERYTHING in His power minus taking away your Free Will. If He did so you would be nothing more than a robot. But God didn't want servant robots, He wanted TRUE love from His creation. He loved us so much that even in our fallen condition He loved us and was willing to put His perfect Son to death for us...so that we may truly live with Him forever. Your choice is still the same choice that Adam had. Choose God, choose life!

September 8, 2011 at 1:17 pm |

@ the truth

I guess that depends on what you believe in as a christian. Some evangelicals would tell you that catholics are going to hell anyways cause they haven't been "saved". But those that believe in the holy trinity would say that god sent himself to earth in the form of his son, by magically impregnating his own mother......you see where Im going with this...... I prefer logic not magic.

September 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm |

mightaswellbe

Your dad is a product of the human imagination and so are you.

September 8, 2011 at 11:07 am |

Larry L

The true evil of orgainzed religion, particularly the more fundamental cults, is best shown in their eagerness to disregard the findings of science. It is understandable however, since a dynamic and evolving theology would likely disprove the core mythology and release people from the grip of fear and guilt used to control them. It's mythology, and the only way to keep the followers tithing is to demand blind obedience and total disregard for knowledge.

September 8, 2011 at 11:14 am |

Bob

Disregarding what some scientists say is not the same as disregarding the findings of science. That these creatures existed is a finding of science. That they had a certain specified relationship is something that some group will decide, as shown by the different opinions. Rejecting that is not rejecting 'science,' but is simply saying that the group made the wrong decision. That similar feature indicated an evolutionary relationship is a cornerstone of evolution (except when proposed evolutionary trees require a feature to have independently evolved multiple times), But in order to establish this, we would needs groups of organisms for which we knew the evolutionary/non-evolutionary relationship independent of features. We could them compare features to relationship. But this has not been done. The entire 'tree' is based on assumptions.

September 8, 2011 at 12:16 pm |

Observer

"The entire 'tree' is based on assumptions.'

Same argument for the Bible. You assume that serpents can talk, bushes can burn without disintegrating, men can live inside whales, 600-year-old men can build boats big enough to hold hundreds of thousands of animals and months of food.

Big difference in the logic of the "assumptions" on both sides.

September 8, 2011 at 12:37 pm |

Bob

"The entire 'tree' is based on assumptions.'

Same argument for the Bible. . . . Big difference in the logic of the "assumptions" on both sides."

I agree. We can verify that some things the Bible says are true, but not everything. We who believe the Bible believe what we cannot verify, based on what we can, and based on the involvement God, who can do the otherwise impossible.

The assumptions of evolution are made because they are necessary to sustain the theory. You can believe in evolution if you wish. Just don't accuse me of rejecting science because I don't agree with your assumptions.
September 8, 2011 at 1:24 pm | Reply

September 8, 2011 at 1:25 pm |

Bob

"Bushes can burn without disintegrating.' If there is a God who created the universe and everything in it, could He not make a bush burn without disintegrating? So why is it illogical to believe that He did?

It is said that we know what the processes of evolution are. But it is assumed that they bring about results we have never observed them to, simply because it is needed by the theory.

September 8, 2011 at 1:32 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

Bob, you're an idiot. Rejecting the findings of science IS rejecting science, how stupid can you be? You, in your infinite wisdom, are going to sit back and reject what the best minds of the world find out about it, because you don't like the answer, not because you know better. This is why you are doomed to extinction, my friend, your brain is damaged.

September 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm |

Bob

Think of all the scientific theories we believe today that are opposite to what, at one time, were "the findings of science." Were those that developed the new theories idiots?The article mentioned several theories on the relationship of the skeletons. Am I an idiot only if I disagree with a particular one? A different one? On only if I disagree with them all? It seems that you a re saying I should believe something just because others ("the best minds of the world") do.

Evolutionists say, for example, that one creature is related to another because they have similarities. But where are the experiments that prove that creatures with similarities are related to one another? The truth of the assumptions underlying evolution is unknown. This being the case, the truth of the theory is unknown.

September 8, 2011 at 3:22 pm |

WhatWhatWhat?

Yes, and people like you will continue to ask for ALL of the facts, EXACTLY as they happened, with physical evidence for EVERYTHING. That's funny coming from someone who has no evidence whatsoever for his beliefs, and the bible is not evidence. Nope, not one single shred of evidence, but you want science all laid out, instantly, like a road map, or you are going to believe in fairy tales. I think I got it this time.

September 8, 2011 at 3:30 pm |

Hasa Diga Eebowai

Bob, its called molecular genetics. All the species on this planet can be compared, and their relationships confirmed just by comparing DNA sequences. In fact, you can do it yourself for free just go to the NCBI website and start BLASTing sequences. The exact species that lead to the Homo genus is a interesting but difficult question as there is little evidence for us to aquire the resolution we would like for our exact ancestry. In essence though you can think of the evolutionary bush (bush is a better analogy then tree). Here we are trying to uncover the branching at the very end before a last tiny needle. The major branches that make up the bush are very difficult to argue against.

September 8, 2011 at 3:48 pm |

Epicurus

Hey Bob,

I get a real kick out of how conservative working stiffs somehow think they know better than the scientific establishment. Who cares that virtually all biologists agree on evolution? So what if 97% of climatologists agree on global warming? You listen to Glenn Beck and your preacher so you've got it all figured out, right?

Yes, the scientific consensus has been wrong before, but it was changed when new evidence was brought to light by scientists (not guys who like the Blue Collar Comedy Tour).

September 9, 2011 at 10:10 pm |

cestlavie3

@bob.As a fellow Christian I would suggest you not so hastily dismiss the possibility of macro evolution. Who are we to put God in box and say He could not have created the universe in such a way that would utilize evolution to bring man into existence. Doing so in no wise changes ones view of Gods character, view of scripture or any other doctrine of the christian faith.

September 9, 2011 at 11:27 pm |

bananaspy

cestlavie3, if you actually believe evolution is the work of the same being who committed the terrible atrocities in the Bible, I don't really know what else to say to that. Oh yeah I do. That's dumb,

September 11, 2011 at 1:08 pm |

S1N

Yep. Plenty of religious nut jobs out today. You religious types better hope that you're wrong. If there IS a heaven, I'm busting down the gates and beating the hell out of the SOB in charge when I die.

About

Light Years strives to tell the stories of science research, discovery, space and education. This is your go-to place on CNN.com for today’s stories, but also for a scientific perspective on the news and everyday wonders. Come indulge your curiosity in all things space and science related, brought to you by the entire CNN family.